Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 4585
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
JOBI ANTO, – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC 1070/2024
S.NIDHEESH, SMT. SREEJA V. (PP)
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.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 482 - QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS - SETTLEMENT BETWEEN VICTIM AND WRONGDOER:
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner sought to quash criminal proceedings against him under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) on the grounds that the matter had been settled between him and the victim.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted that the Supreme 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.
Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed in light of the settlement between him and the victim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the matter had been settled and no public interest was involved in the case. It further held that the continuance of the proceedings would only be an exercise in futility.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed all proceedings against the petitioner.
ORDER
Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash all proceedings against him.
2. Petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.3424/2021 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Varkala, arising out of Crime No.222/2021 of Anthuthengu Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District, registered for the offences under Sections 447, 506(1) and 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The 2nd respondent is the defacto complainant.
3. According to the prosecution, the accused had, on
22.03.2021, tresspassed into the property of the defacto complainant and threatened him and thereby committed the offences alleged.
4. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent apart from the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter has been settled and hence the proceedings against the petitioner 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 [(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 v. State of Punjab [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another [(2014) 9 SCC 653].
7. I have perused Annexure 2 afÏdavit filed by the 2nd respondent. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that upon verification, it is understood that the afÏdavit 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 petitioner in C.C.No.3424/2021 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Varkala are quashed.
This Crl.M.C is allowed.
Sd/
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE jm/
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1070/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.
222/2021 OF ANJUTHENGU POLICE STATION Annexure 2 A ORGINAL COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORM BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 3.01.2024
