John Rose vs State of Kerala

K. Ramakrishnan, J.—This is an application filed by the petitioner who is the sole accused now in C.C.No.629/2012 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No-II, Neyyattinkara to quash the proceedings on the basis of settlement as well as on the basis of acquittal of other accused persons under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner was originally arrayed as third accused in Crime No. 143/2006 of Parassala Police Station along with other persons alleging offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 447, 427, 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. After investigation, final report was filed and the case was originally taken as C.C.No.629/2012 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No-II, Neyyattinkara. Except the present petitioner and 5th accused, others were tried and acquitted as per Annexure D Judgment dated 28.05.2012. The case against the present petitioner and 5th accused was split up and it was refiled as C.C.No.629/2012. Now, the present petitioner surrendered before the court and he was granted bail. The matter has been settled between the parties and considering the fact that certain offences are non-compoundable in nature, they could not file an application for compounding before the court below. No purpose will be served on account of the proceeding with the case as well. Further, the petitioner is also entitled to get the benefit of acquittal of co-accused as the foundation of the case has been shattered out. So, the petitioner has no other remedy except to approach this court seeking the following relief:

To call for the records leading to C.C.No.629/2012 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Neyyattinkara and quash all further proceedings on the same as against the petitioner.

Second respondent appeared through Counsel and submitted that matter has been settled between the parties, and the incident occurred in connection with dispute regarding the path way and really it is a private dispute and that has now been settled and others were already acquitted. So, he had no grievance against the present petitioner and he had filed an affidavit stating these facts as well.

The Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in view of the settlement and also considering the fact that other accused persons were acquitted, no purpose will be served by keeping the case on file. So, he prayed for allowing the application.

The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, as directed by this court submitted that there is no other case against the petitioners and it was a path way dispute which resulted in the incident, but, opposed the application.

It is an admitted fact that on the basis of the statement given by the second respondent, Crime No. 143/2006 of Parassala Police Station was registered against seven accused persons including the petitioner alleging offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 447, 427, 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. It is also an admitted fact that after investigation, final report was filed and it was originally taken on file as C.C.No.562/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No-II, Neyyattinkara. It is also an admitted fact that as per Annexure D judgment, except the present petitioner and the original 5th accused, others were tried and acquitted by the magistrate court. Further, it is also seen from the judgment itself that all the witnesses have turned hostile and none of the witnesses supported the case of the prosecution. So, applying the principles laid down in the decision reported in Moosa Vs. Sub Inspector of Police, , if the co- accused were acquitted and the substratum of the prosecution case has been shattered on account of the evidence, then, that benefit can be given to the accused who did not face trial and he is can get his case quashed on that ground. Further, in this case, the case has been settled between the parties and second respondent-the de facto complainant had filed an affidavit stating that the path way dispute has led to the incident and that has been now settled between the parties and even the witnesses have turned hostile in the earlier case on account of the settlement. So, in view of the settlement, no purpose will be served by proceeding with the case as well.

Further, in the decision reported in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, , it has been held that if a private dispute or property dispute has resulted in registration of crime and it has been settled later between the parties, then, the court must honour such settlement and promote harmony that has been resulted on account of the settlement invoking the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the non compoundable offences can be quashed by the court.

Applying the principles laid down in the above decision and also considering the fact that most of the accused persons were acquitted by the court in the earlier proceedings and none of the witnesses have supported the case even at that time and since the matter has been settled between the parties, no purpose will be served by keeping the case on file and conviction in such case will be remote, this court feels that it is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked to quash the proceedings as against the petitioner in order to promote the settlement and harmony that has been resulted and the pendency of this case should not be a hurdle for the same.

So, the petition is allowed and further proceedings in C.C.No.629/2012 (Crime No. 143/2006 of Parassala Police Station) pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No-II, Neyyattinkara as against the petitioner is quashed.

Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately.