Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 20646
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
KARTHIKA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC 1284 2023
Roopesh N.R, N.A. Swapna, M.V. Rathish, Smt. Sreeja V
The court reinforced the principle that amicable settlements can warrant quashing of criminal proceedings when public interest is not at stake.
Headnote:
Quash - Criminal Proceedings - Section 482 CrPC - The court quashed criminal proceedings based on amicable settlement between parties, referring to precedents that allow such resolution in absence of public interest.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, accused in a criminal case, sought to quash proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC, arguing that the matter was amicably settled which negated the need for continuance.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dispute was settled amicably between the parties, validating affidavits from complainants and observing no public interest in continuing proceedings.
Issues: Whether the court should quash the criminal proceedings based on an amicable settlement between the accused and the complainants.
Ratio Decidendi: In incidents where disputes are settled amicably, the court may quash proceedings, especially when no public interest is compromised, as supported by established case law.
Final Decision: All proceedings against the petitioners in C.C. No.506/2021 are 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 and 2 in C.C. No.506/2021 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kakkanad, arising out of Crime No.7/2021 of Thrikkakara Police Station, registered for the offences under Sections 342 and 506(i) r/w Section 34 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. 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 3 and Annexure 4 afÏdavits filed by respondents 2 and 3. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that upon verification, it is understood that the afÏdavits 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 C.C. No.506/2021 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kakkanad, are quashed.
This Crl.M.C is allowed as above.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE
APPENDIX OF CRL.M.C. NO.1284/2023 PETITIONERS ANNEXURES Annexure1 CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR NO. 07/2021 OF THE THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION IN ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
Annexure2 CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.07/2021 OF THE THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION IN ERNAKULAM DISTRICT Annexure3 ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED
21.01.2023 SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/
DE FACTO COMPLAINANT Annexure4 ORGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 06.02.
2023 SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT/ VICTIM (CW-2)
