Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 31323
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
JAYAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC 1786 2023
JINU JOSEPH, P.K.MOHAMED JAMEEL
The court affirmed the ability to quash criminal proceedings when disputes have been amicably settled, supporting its decision with existing case law.
Headnote:
Quash - Criminal Proceedings - Cr.P.C Section 482 - The court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C to quash proceedings based on the amicable resolution of disputes between the parties, as supported by previous case law.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners sought to quash proceedings in a criminal case involving accusations of minor offenses. They claimed the disputes had been settled amicably, and no purpose was served by continuing with the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted the amicable resolution and verified the authenticity of affidavits presented by the complainant, concluding that there was no public interest involved in pursuing the case further.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the proceedings against the petitioners could be quashed under the Cr.P.C in light of an amicable resolution between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle established in previous rulings, permitting the quashing of proceedings when disputes are resolved amicably and public interest is not compromised.
Final Decision: All proceedings against the petitioners 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 to 3 in CC No.1132/2021 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vaikom, arising out of Crime No. 1993/2021 of Vaikom Police Station, registered for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323 and 341 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Respondent No. 2 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. 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 ] and Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another [ (2014) 9 SCC 653 ].
6. I have perused Annexure A2 afÏdavit filed by the 2nd respondent. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that upon verification, it is understood that the afÏdavits are genuine, and the defacto complainant 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.1132/2021 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vaikom, are quashed. Crl.M.C is allowed as above.
