Allowed

Abilash K. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Jun 2016Crl.MC/3015/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a petition to quash criminal proceedings in a first information report involving offences under the Indian Penal Code. The court held that since the dispute between the accused and private complainants was settled and compromised voluntarily, continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. The matter of the compromise and the voluntary settlemen

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings in C.C. No. 235 of 2014 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur were quashed.

Abilash K. Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2016/13TH JYAISHTA, 1938H

¶5

Crl.MC. No.3015 of 2016 ()

¶6

IN CC 235/2014 ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, PAYYANNUR IN CRIME NO. 43/2014 OF PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION , KANNUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

ABILASH K. AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.RAGHAVAN, KIZHIKKANIYIL HOUSE, RAMANTHALI AMSOM, ETTIKULAM, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.TITUS MANI

¶10

SRI.P.A.JACOB

¶11

SRI.BINNY THOMAS

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, 682031.

¶14

SANTHOSH.K, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.ACHUTHAN, KOKKIRI HOUSE, RAMANTHALI AMSOM, ETTIKULAM, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶15

RAFI, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.UMMER, MUKKONKOCHANTEPARACKU HOUSE, RAMANTHALI AMSOM, ETTIKULAM, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶16

R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.R.MAHESH (KOTTAPPURAM) R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Crl.MC. No.3015 of 2016 () ------------------------------

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶21

A1: A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.43/2014 OF PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION.

¶22

A2: A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.43/2014 OF THE PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION.

¶23

A3: AN AFFIDAVIT IN ORIGINAL FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶24

A4: AN AFFIDAVIT IN ORIGINAL FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:-NIL

KRJ

//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J

¶30

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶31

Crl.M.C No.3015 of 2016

¶32

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated 3^rd June, 2016

¶33

ORDER

¶34

The petitioner herein is the sole accused in C.C No.

¶35

235 of 2014 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur involving offences punishable under Sections 323, 294 (b), 341 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. The 2^nd respondent is the de facto complainant and the 3^rd respondent is the injured. This petition is filed seeking to quash alll further proceedings in the above case on the ground that the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3 have been settled and compromised.

¶36

2.Prosecution allegation is that on 13.01.2014 at 3:40

¶37

-:2:-

¶38

Crl.MC.3015/16

¶39

p.m, the petitioner had abused respondents 2 and 3

¶40

who are the driver and conductor of a bus and

¶41

assaulted them.

¶42

3.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3.

¶43

4.It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that during the pendency of criminal proceedings, the matter has been settled and the parties have decided to keep harmony between them. It is further submitted that the respondents 2 and 3 have shown the virtue and gentility to forgive the petitioners for their wrong doing. The petitioners, it is submitted, has undertaken that they would refrain from committing acts of violence. Finally it

¶44

-:3:-

¶45

Crl.MC.3015/16

¶46

submitted that in essence the offences involved are of a personal nature and are not offences against the society and that continuation of criminal proceedings will only be an exercise in futility.

¶47

5.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2

¶48

and 3 submitted that Annexures A3 and A4 affidavits have been sworn to by the victims, wherein it has been asserted that the matter has been settled and they do not intend to continue with the criminal prosecution. It is also submitted that respondents 2 and 3 do not have any objection in allowing this petition and in quashing the proceedings. 6.Learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that petitioner is not a person with criminal antecedents.

¶49

7.It is thus borne out from the submissions made at

¶50

-:4:-

¶51

Crl.MC.3015/16

¶52

the Bar that the parties have amicably settled their disputes on their free will and without any kind of pressure, influence or coercion. The compromise, it is felt, is voluntarily and genuine and can be acted upon. The law with regard to the settlement of criminal disputes on the strength of an amicable resolution of the disputes between the parties is no more res integra .

¶53

8.In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303], 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

¶54

of Punjab [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and

¶55

-:5:-

¶56

Crl.MC.3015/16

¶57

Another [(2014) 9 SCC 653].

¶58

9.It was held that the inherent power is of wide

¶59

plenitude 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

¶60

-:6:-

¶61

Crl.MC.3015/16

¶62

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.

¶63

10.After having anxiously considered the submissions it is felt that it would be unfair and contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding . It would only tantamount to 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.

¶64

11.I am of the firm view that this petition can be

¶65

-:7:-

¶66

Crl.MC.3015/16

¶67

allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner in C.C No. 235 of 2014 on the files of the Judicial

¶68

First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur shall stand quashed.

¶69

Sd/-