Visakh @ Sheik vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 17462 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA
         THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 4TH BHADRA, 1943
                         CRL.MC NO. 3142 OF 2021
           CRIME NO.848/2018 OF Ochira Police Station, Kollam
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 1063/2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
                 FIRST CLASS - I, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

     1       VISAKH @ SHEIK,
             AGED 28 YEARS,
             S/O. SUDHAKARAN, VALLOPALLIL HOUSE,
             KLAPANA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

     2       VISHNU,
             AGED 33 YEARS
             S/O. SUDHAKARAN, MUNDOLIL HOUSE, PERUMANTHAZHA MURI,
             KLAPANA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

             BY ADV K.RAKESH



RESPONDENTS/STATE, DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & INJURED:

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

    2        THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
             OACHIRA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-690526.

    3        BINDU,
             AGED 35 YEARS,
             W/O. VINOD, PALLICKAMANNEL VEEDU, SRAYICADU,
             ALAPPADU VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPALLY TALUK,
             KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-690525.

    4        VINOD,
             AGED 43 YEARS,
             S/O. VIDHYADHARAN, PALLICKAMANNEL VEEDU,
             SRAYICADU, ALAPPADU VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPALLY TALUK,
 CRL.MC NO. 3142 OF 2021       -2-



         KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-690525.

         BY ADV K.S.PRAVEEN

         SEETHA S., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR


     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 26.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 CRL.MC NO. 3142 OF 2021     -3-



                           ORDER

Crl.M.C. has been filed seeking to quash further

proceedings in C.C.No.1063/2018 arising out of Crime

No.848/2018 of Ochira Police Station, pending on the files

of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Karunagapally.

2. C.C. No.1063 /2018 has been registered against

the Petitioners/Accused No.1&2 under Sections 341, 323,

354, 427 read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution

allegation is that the Petitioners out of previous enemity

blocked the motorcycle of respondent Nos.3 and 4 and first

petitioner beat at the cheek of respondent No.2 with hand

and pulled the Churidar of the 3 rd respondent and thereby

committed the offences mentioned above. Annexure A is

the copy of the final report in Crime No.848/2018.

3. When the case came up for hearing it is

submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that

the matter has been settled between the petitioners and

the de facto complainant and his wife. Learned counsel

appearing for the de facto complainant and his wife also

reported that the matter has been settled between the

parties and an affidavit duly signed by the de facto

complainant and his wife are produced as Annexures B &C.

4. In the affidavit, signed by the de facto

complainant and his wife, they have solemnly affirmed

that dispute between the parties had been settled and

further continuance of the prosecution is unnecessary.

5. The parties are neighbours. There is no public

interest involved and the dispute is private in nature.

6. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another

(2012 10 SCC 303 : 2012 KHC 4530) a three Judge

Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procesure, 1973 has

held that criminal cases having civil flavour and arising

from commercial, financial merchantile, civil, partnership,

matrimony relating to dowry or family disputes where

wrong is private or personal in nature can be quashed in

view of the settlement between the parties. Paragraph 57

of the said decision is relevant in this context to be

extracted which reads as follows :-

"The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide 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. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. 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. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of

Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal

proceeding."

7. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that

the statement of the de facto complainant has been taken

and he re-iterated the averments in the affidavit filed by

him. So as a matter of fact the dispute between the

parties are resolved and the continuance of the

proceedings in the CC.1063/2018 would be a waste of time

of the Court and ends of justice demands quashment of the

proceedings against the petitioners.

8. In the result Crl.M.C is allowed and the entire

proceedings in C.C.No.1063/2018 on the file of Judicial

First Class Magistrate Court, Karunagappally is hereby

quashed.

Sd/-

M.R.ANITHA JUDGE vv

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3142/2021

PETITIONER ANNEXURE

Annexure A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.848/2018 OF OACHIRA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

Annexure B            AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 3RD
                      RESPONDENT DATED 5.7.2021.

Annexure C            AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 4TH
                      RESPONDENT DATED, 5.7.2021.