Nabilu vs State of Kerala

K. Ramakrishnan, J.—This is an application filed by the petitioners who are accused in S.C No. 527/2013 on the file of Assistant Sessions Court, Koyilandi to quash the proceedings on the basis of settlement u/s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

It is alleged in the petition that petitioners are arrayed as accused in Crime No. 648/2010 of Balussery Police Station registered on the basis of the statement given by the second respondent as de facto complainant as Annexure A1 First Information Report alleging offence u/s. 436 of the Indian Penal Code. Later, after investigation, final report was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Perambra and the case was committed to Sessions Court where it was taken as S.C No. 527/2013 and made over to Assistant Sessions Court, Koyilandi for disposal and it is pending before that court. There was another case between some of the members of petitioner''s party and de facto complainant''s party alleging offences u/ss. 143, 147, 148, 448, 341, 323, 324 and 307 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation and committal, it was taken on file as S.C No. 742/2011 and that was ended in acquittal as per Annexure A4 judgment of Additional Sessions Court - IV, Kozhikode on the basis of settlement. Now the present dispute also resolved between the parties and on account of the settlement there is no possibility of conviction. Since the offence alleged is non-compoundable in nature, they cannot file an application for compounding before the court concerned. So they have no other remedy except to approach this court seeking the following relief:

Pass an order quashing Annexure A1 FIR, A2 final report in Crime No. 648/2010 of Balussery Police Station and S.C No. 527/2013 of Assistant Sessions Court, Koyilandi, for the interest of justice.

Second respondent appeared through counsel and submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties and connected crimes were also settled on account of the intervention of respectable members of both parties and that was ended in acquittal. So he does not want to prosecute the petitioner any longer. He filed Annexure A5 affidavit stating these facts.

Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that in view of the settlement, there is no possibility of conviction and he prayed for allowing the application.

Learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions as directed by this court, submitted that there is no other case against the petitioners but, considering the fact that grave offences have been incorporated, there is no need to invoke Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and opposed the application.

It is an admitted fact that on the basis of the statement given by the second respondent as de facto complainant, Annexure A1 First Information Report was registered as Crime No. 648/2010 of Balussery Police Station against the present petitioners alleging offence u/s. 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and after investigation, Annexure A2 final report was filed and after committal, it is now pending before the Assistant Sessions Court, Koyilandi as S.C No. 527/2013. Now the matter has been settled between the parties. It is also averred in the petition that in connection with some incident between the same groups, there was another case as Crime No. 648/2010 of Balussery Police Station and that was also settled and since none of the witnesses have supported the prosecution and turned hostile in view of the settlement, the accused in those case were acquitted which is evident from Annexure A4 judgment. It is true that it is a clash between two political parties. However, now they have settled their disputes taking into account the peace to be restored in the locality due to the intervention of the members of both parties. Considering the fact that the parties have settled the dispute, there is no possibility of any conviction in such cases as they will not support the case of the prosecution. Allowing the case to continue in such circumstances will amount to wastage of judicial time. If wisdom has dawn in the mind of the political parties to settle their scores at the later stage with a view to bring harmony in the society and with a hope that they will not continue same in future, then such an attempt made on the side of the political parties will have to be encouraged.

In the decision reported in Gian Singh v State of Punjab (2012(4) KLT108(SC), the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that:

The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing in criminal proceeding or F.I.R. 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. 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 case, 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 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."

In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision and also considering the fact that the matter has been settled between the parties and there is no scope of conviction in view of the settlement, this court feels that this is a case where the power u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked to quash the proceedings to promote the settlement that has been brought in between two political parties taking into account the public interest of the society who always want peace in the locality which is being thwarted due to the unwanted motiveless fight between lower rank sympathizes of the political parties.

In the result, the petition is allowed and further proceedings in S.C No. 527/2013 pending before the Assistant Sessions Court, Koyilandi as against the petitioners is hereby quashed.

Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately for necessary further action in the matter.