Kaisal vs State of Kerala and Sakkariya K.M.

V.K. Mohanan, J.—The above petition is filed u/s 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short ''Cr.P.C.'') at the instance of the petitioners, who is accused in Crime No. 1163 of 2012 of Kasaragod Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 341 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure-A1 final report and all further proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No. 1163 of 2012 of Kasaragod police station as the matter is settled out of court. The allegation in the above case is that at about 1 p.m. on 30.09.2012, the petitioner/accused attacked the de facto complainant with a stick on his head and thereby caused injury to him and accordingly committed the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 324 of IPC and now, the case of the petitioner is that the matter is settled out of court.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the second respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that during the pendency of the above crime, the matter is settled amicably between the parties to the dispute which is the subject matter of the above case. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above crime is abuse of process of law and proceedings. Annexure-A2 is the affidavit sworn into by the de facto complainant, who is the second respondent herein.

The learned counsel for the second respondent who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondent submitted that the above respondent, who is the de facto complainant does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioner and she has no grievance against him and stating the said fact she had sworn into Annexure-A2 affidavit.

I have carefully considered the above submissions of the respective counsel. I have verified the documents and materials produced along with the above petition. In the given facts and circumstances of the case and especially in the light of the settlement arrived between the parties to the dispute, the learned Public Prosecutor has also no objection in allowing the above petition. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, it can be seen that the offences involved in the above case are only Sections 324 and 341 of I.P.C. which are more or less personal in nature and no public interest is involved. It is pertinent to note that though such offences are involved, the real parties to the dispute approached this Court after having amicably settled the matter. From the submission made by the counsel for the second respondent, it appears to me that the de facto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioner accused in the light of the settlement arrived by them. In this juncture, it is relevant to note the decision of the Honourable Apex Court reported in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, . In Gian Singh''s case, the Supreme Court has held 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 S. 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.

It is further held as follows:-

... 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....

According to me, in the light of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and particularly in view of the settlement arrived in the present case, the dictum laid in the above decision is applicable in the present case. According to me, as the parties to the dispute settled the issues amicably, it is the duty of this Court to promote and encourage such settlement, instead of compelling the parties to go on with the dispute. It is pertinent to note that since the matter is settled out of court, in the event of proceeding with the trial, there would not have any fruitful prosecution resulting the conviction of the accused, rather the net result would be sheer waste of judicial time and abuse of process of the court and proceedings. Thus, according to me, following the decisions cited supra, this Criminal M.C. can be allowed granting the relief as sought for.

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing Annexure-AI Final Report and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in Crime No. 1163 of 2012 of Kasaragod police station and all further proceedings thereto.