Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 7283
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
SUJAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC 4763/2024
SREEJITH S. NAIR, V.S.THOSHIN, SATHEESH MOHANAN, MAHIMA, AKHIL SUSEENDRAN, SEKHAR G. THAMPI, ABHISHEK NAIR M.R., ASHI M.C.
The High Court can quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases where the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved.
Headnote:
Quashing - Criminal Proceedings - Section 482 Cr.P.C - Sections 452, 341, 323, 294(b) and 506(i) r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Amicable Resolution of Dispute
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in a criminal case for offenses under Sections 452, 341, 323, 294(b) and 506(i) r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution alleged that the accused had on 18.12.2016 abused the defacto complainant and assaulted him after trespassing into his house.
Finding of the Court:
The court is satisfied that the matter has been settled and no public interest is involved in this case. The continuance of the proceedings will only be an exercise in futility.
Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioners should be quashed considering the amicable resolution of the dispute between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: 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.
Final Decision: All proceedings against the petitioners in C.C. No.703 of 2017 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kattakada are quashed.
Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash all proceedings against them.
2. Petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in C.C. No.703 of 2017 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kattakada, arising out of Crime No.1446 of 2016 of Vilappilsala Police Sttion, Thiruvananthapuram, registered for the offences under Sections 452 , 341, 323, 294(b) and 506(i) r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 . The 2nd respondent is the defacto complainant.
3. According to the prosecution, the accused had on 18.12.2016 abused the defacto complainant and assaulted him after trespassing into his house and thereby committed the offences alleged.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent, apart from the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. 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.
6. 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 in Narinder 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 ].
7. I have perused Annexure-B affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that upon verification, it is understood that the affidavit is 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.
8. Accordingly, all proceedings against the petitioners in C.C. No.703 of 2017 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kattakada are quashed.
This Crl.M.C is allowed as above.
