Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 31399
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
HARIKRISHNAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC 1458 2023
S.SAMEER, CHRISTY THOMAS
The High Court can quash criminal proceedings if an amicable resolution is reached between the parties and no public interest is involved.
Headnote:
Quashing - Criminal Proceedings - Cr.P.C Section 482 - The court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioners based on amicable settlement between parties, applying principles from Gian Singh and related case laws, emphasizing the absence of public interest in proceeding further.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, accused in a criminal case, sought to quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C, claiming the dispute was settled amicably. The offences ranged from unlawful assembly to attempts of culpable homicide.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the affidavits from the complainant and witness genuine, confirming that the matter was settled and that continuing the proceedings would be futile with no public interest at stake.
Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed based on the amicable settlement between the parties involved.
Ratio Decidendi: The court referenced established case law, noting that amicable resolutions can justify quashing charges if there's no public interest in further prosecution.
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 6 in S.C. No.553/2018 on the files of the Additional District and Sessions Court-II, Alappuzha, arising from Crime No.981/2017 of Haripad Police Station, registered for the offences under Sections 143 , 147, 148, 149, 294(b), 324 and 308 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 A3 and Annexure A4 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 S.C. No.553/2018 on the files of the Additional District and Sessions Court-II, Alappuzha, are quashed. This Crl.M.C is allowed as above.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE
APPENDIX OF CRL.M.C.No.1458/2023 PETITIONERS ANNEXURES Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
981/2017 OF THE HARIPAD POLICE STATION Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN FIR NO.981/2017 OF THE HARIPAD POLICE STATION.
Annexure A3 ORGINAL AFFIDAVIT DATED 06/02/2023, SWORN IN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Annexure A4 ORGINAL AFFIDAVIT DATED 07/02/2023, SWORN IN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
