Santhosh vs State of Kerala and Anil Kumar

K. Ramakrishnan, J.—This is an application filed by the petitioner who is the accused in C.C. No. 724/11 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pala, to quash proceedings recording compounding u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. It is alleged in the petition that on the basis of the statement given by the de facto complainant second respondent herein, Annexure A crime was registered as Crime No. 337/11 against the petitioner alleging offences under Sections 451, 341 and 294(b) of Indian Penal Code. After investigation, final report was filed and the case was taken on file as C.C. No. 724/11 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pala and the case is now pending before that court. In the meantime, the matter has been settled between the parties and Annexure C settlement was arrived at between the parties and the de facto complainant had decided to withdraw the complaint against the petitioner. In view of the settlement, no purpose will be served in proceeding with the case. Since some of the offences are non-compoundable in nature, no petition can be filed before the court below to record compounding and the petitioner has no other remedy except to approach this court seeking the following relief:

To quash Annexure A final report and all further proceedings in C.C. No. 724/2011 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pala arising from Crime No. 337/2011 of Ramapuram Police Station to secure the ends of justice and to avoid the abuse of process

Second respondent appeared through Counsel and submitted that matter has been settled between the parties and Annexure C agreement was entered into between the parties regarding this aspect and he does not want to prosecute the petitioner as the difference of opinion between them has been resolved due to settlement. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the settlement, no purpose will be served in proceeding with the case.

Learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, as directed by this court submitted that, there is no other case against the petitioner and he has no criminal background but opposed the application.

It is an admitted fact that on the basis of the statement given by the second respondent de facto complainant, Ramapuram police has registered a case as Crime No. 337/11 against the petitioner alleging offences u/s 451, 341 and 294(b) of Indian Penal Code and after investigation, final report was filed and it was taken on file as C.C. No. 724/11 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pala and it is pending before that court. Now, the matter has been settled between the parties which is evident from Annexure C settlement. The offences alleged are not that serious and also it cannot be said to be a crime involving public interest. But, it is a dispute between two individuals which resulted in the registering of the crime which has been settled between the parties.

In the decision reported in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, it is held as follows:

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 no purpose will be served by proceeding with the case and conviction in such cases will be remote on account of the settlement, this court feels that it is a fit case where the power u/s 482 of Code of Procedure has to be invoked to quash the proceedings.

So, the application is allowed and further proceedings in C.C. No. 724/11 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pala as against the petitioner is quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned magistrate court immediately.