Petitioners challenged prosecution under IPC Sections 143, 147, 323, 325, 354 read with 34. Court noted amicable settlement between opposing neighbour parties. Petition allowed; proceedings quashed as settlement was voluntary and served community interest.
Further proceedings against petitioners in C.C No.29 of 2015 stand quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2016/10TH JYAISHTA, 1938
Crl.MC. No.2475 of 2016 ()
IN CC NO.29/2015 ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, KASARAGOD IN CRIME NO. 605/2014 OF VIDYA NAGAR POLICE STATION, KASARGOD
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
BY ADV. SMT.C.B.SUMA DEVI
...2/-
:2:
Crl.MC. No.2475 of 2016 ()
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC. No 2475 of 2016 ()
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:-
A1:-TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO 605/2014 DT 05/12/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KASARAGOD.
AII:-TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
AIII:-TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
AIV:-TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. AV:-TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:-NIL
KRJ
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C No.2475 of 2016
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated 31st May, 2016
ORDER
The petitioners herein are accused 1 to 6 in C.C No.29 of
2015 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Kasaragod involving offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 325, 354 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.
the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners seek to invoke extra-ordinary powers of this Court to quash pending criminal proceedings on the ground that the matter has been amicably resolved between the parties.
the accused persons formed themselves into unlawful assembly
Crl.MC.2475/16 -:2:-
and assaulted the de facto complainant and CWs.2 to 4 .
-:3:-
Crl.MC.2475/16
State has no serious objection in acting on Annexures-II to V filed
by respondents 2 to 5.
the parties is no more res integra .
Apex Court has laid down that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. This view was reiterated in Narinder Singh v. State
of Punjab (2014 (6) SCC 466) and Yogendra Yadav and Others
v. State of Jharkhand and Another (2014 (9) SCC 653) .
Crl.MC.2475/16 -:4:-
with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. It was held that certain categories of cases involving heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute as those offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. But those cases where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and those in which the parties have resolved their entire dispute could fittingly be quashed by this court taking into account the compromise between the offender and victim. In such cases the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused and the de facto complainant to great oppression and prejudice.
-:5:-
Crl.MC.2475/16
abuse of process of law to subject the parties to the ordeal of a protracted criminal proceeding despite the settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer. Settlement will augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony.
In the result, the instant petition is allowed and all
further proceedings against the petitioners herein in C.C No.29 of
2015 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Kasaragod shall stand quashed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V JUDGE
krj.31/5/16
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC based on an amicable settlement between neighbours under provisions of Sections 143, 147, 323, 325, 354 of IPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of PunjabExplained¶61
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012 (10) SCC 303) · Who else cites this
Narinder Singh v. State of PunjabExplained¶62
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014 (6) SCC 466) · Who else cites this
Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of JharkhandExplained¶63
Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another (2014 (9) SCC 653) · Who else cites this
Abdul Azeez and Others
State of Kerala
Ibrahim C.H
Aalikunhi K.M
Rabiya K.M
C.H Pokker
Raja Vijayaraghavan V
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
