Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 11315
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
AKHIL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC 1823 2023
SALIM V.S.
In specific cases, the court can quash criminal proceedings when the dispute is amicably settled and no public interest is affected.
Headnote:
Quashing - Criminal Proceedings - IPC Sections List - The court quashed criminal proceedings due to amicable settlement between the parties, relying on precedents that allow for cessation of proceedings when public interest is not at stake.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners were accused in a criminal case for various IPC offenses. They sought to quash the proceedings claiming the matter was settled amicably.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the affidavits from the defacto complainant and injured witness credible, supporting the assertion that the disputes were resolved, negating public interest concerns.
Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioners should be quashed based on the amicable resolution of disputes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that in the absence of public interest and in light of amicable settlements, it can exercise discretion to quash criminal proceedings.
Final Decision: All proceedings against the petitioners were quashed.
ORDER
Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash all proceedings against them.
2. Petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 9 in S.C. No. 472/2021 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Court, Muvattupuzha arising out of Crime No.1695/2019 of Kothamangalam Police Station, Ernakulam registered for the offences under Sections 143 , 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 308 and 506(ii) r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 . Respondents 2 and 3 are the defacto complainant and the injured witness.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents, apart from the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the matter has been settled and hence the proceedings against the petitioners ought to be quashed. It was also submitted that, considering the nature of offences alleged, no purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings.
5. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [(2012)
10 SCC 303], the Apex Court has held that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. This view was reiterated inNarinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another [ (2014) 6 SCC 466 ] andYogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another [ (2014) 9 SCC 653 ].
6. I have perused Annexure 6 and Annexure 7 affidavits filed by respondents 2 and 3. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that upon verification, it is understood that the affidavits are genuine, and the defacto complainant and the other deponent stand by the contents thereof. I am satisfied that the matter has been settled and no public interest is involved in this case. There is no impediment for granting the prayer for quashing. The continuance of the proceedings will only be an exercise in futility.
7. Accordingly, all proceedings against the petitioners in S.C.
No.472/2021 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Court, Muvattupuzha are quashed.
This criminal miscellaneous case is allowed as above.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE ska APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1823/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR DATED 06.08.2019 IN CRIME NO. 1695/2019 OF KOTHAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
Annexure2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF FIS DATED 06.08.2019 IN CRIME NO. 1695/2019 OF KOTHAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
Annexure3 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE DATED 24.08.2019 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Annexure4 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE DATED 06.;08.20219 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Annexure5 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 1695/2019 OF KOTHAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
Annexure6 AN AFFIDAVIT DULY SIGNED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Annexure7 AN AFFIDAVIT DULY SIGNED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
