Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 10263
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
SIDDIQUE – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC 1500 2023
K.REEHA KHADER, SMT.SEETHA S., ADV.ANJALY JIMMICHAN
Criminal proceedings can be quashed where there is an amicable settlement between the parties and no public interest is involved.
Headnote:
Quash - Criminal Proceedings - Cr.P.C 482 - The court interpreted Section 482 of the Cr.P.C to quash proceedings due to amicable resolution of disputes, citing precedents that support termination of proceedings in absence of public interest.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, accused in a criminal case, sought to quash proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, claiming that the matter had been settled amicably with the defacto complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the affidavits genuine and noted that the defacto complainant affirmed the settlement. The court acknowledged that continuing proceedings served no public interest.
Issues: Whether the proceedings against the petitioners can be quashed based on an amicable resolution of disputes.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court has the discretion to quash criminal proceedings when there's an amicable settlement, provided the public interest is not adversely affected.
Final Decision: The court quashed all proceedings against the petitioners in C.C. No.144/2016.
The legal document discusses the authority of the court to quash criminal proceedings when there is an amicable settlement between the parties, and no public interest is involved (!) (!) (!) (!) . The court emphasizes that under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C), it has the discretion to terminate proceedings in such circumstances, especially when continuing the case would serve no meaningful purpose and would not impact public interest (!) .
In the specific case, the petitioners, accused in a criminal matter, sought to have the proceedings quashed after settling the dispute amicably with the complainant. The court verified the genuineness of the affidavits and found that the complainant affirmed the settlement, leading to the conclusion that there was no public interest in continuing the proceedings (!) .
Based on these findings, the court held that the proceedings against the petitioners could be quashed, as the settlement and the absence of public interest justified ending the case (!) . The decision underscores the principle that criminal cases can be resolved amicably and terminated when appropriate, provided public interest is not compromised.
ORDER
Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash all proceedings against them.
2. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 & 2 in C.C. No.144/2016 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Payyoli, arising out of Crime No.101/2013 of Payyoli Police Station, Kozhikode, registered for the offences under Sections 324 and 294(b) r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2nd respondent is the defacto complainant.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent, 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. InGian 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 ] and Yogendra Yadav and Others v.
State of Jharkhand and Another [ (2014) 9 SCC 653 ].
6. I have perused Annexure A3 affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that upon verification, it is understood that the affidavits are genuine, and the defacto complainant stands 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 C.C. No.144/2016 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Payyoli are quashed.
This Crl.M.C is allowed as above.
