Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 31660
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
RAHUL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC 672 2023
MANU RAMACHANDRAN, M.KIRANLAL, R.RAJESH (VARKALA), SAMEER M NAIR, DHANALAKSHMI V.K., GEETHU KRISHNAN, SAILAKSHMI MENON
High Court may quash criminal proceedings when disputes are resolved amicably, aligning with precedents on amicable settlements.
Headnote:
Quash - Criminal Proceedings - Section 482 Cr.P.C - The court quashed the criminal proceedings based on the amicable settlement between parties, establishing the authority of the High Court to end proceedings in appropriate cases due to resolution between victim and accused.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, accused in a criminal case, sought to quash the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C, asserting the matter had been amicably settled with the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined that an amicable resolution existed between the parties and that maintaining the proceedings would serve no purpose, thus quashing the case.
Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed due to the amicable settlement between the accused and the complainant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court confirmed its authority to quash proceedings when there is an amicable resolution of disputes, as supported by precedents referenced.
Final Decision: All proceedings against the petitioners in C.C. No.836/2021 are quashed.
JUDGMENT
Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash all proceedings against them.
2. Petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C. No.
836/2021 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chengannur arising out of Crime No.1123/2020 of Venmony Police Station, Alappuzha registered for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 341, 294(b) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Respondents 3 and 4 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. 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] andYogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another [(2014) 9 SCC 653].
6. I have perused A2 and A3 affidavits filed by respondents
3 and 4. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that upon verification, it is understood that the affidavits 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.836/2021 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chengannur are quashed. This Crl.M.C is allowed as above.
