Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 29087
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
Al-Ameen – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC 2401 2023
SHAJIN S.HAMEED, NITHYA R., SMT.SREEJA V., A.K.RAJESH
The court can quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C when parties reach an amicable resolution, provided no public interest is compromised.
Headnote:
Quashing - Criminal Proceedings - Section 482 Cr.P.C - The court emphasized the importance of amicable resolution in criminal cases, allowing quashing of proceedings when no public interest is at stake, as noted in relevant case laws.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners were accused in a criminal case involving multiple IPC sections. They sought to quash the proceedings, claiming the matter had been amicably settled with the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the matter was indeed settled amicably and noted that there was no public interest involved, thus justifying the quashing of charges.
Issues: Whether the proceedings against the petitioners should be quashed based on an amicable settlement between the parties involved.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on previous judgments establishing that the High Court could quash proceedings in cases where disputes have been amicably resolved without public interest implications.
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 5 in C.C. No.2456/2016 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-III, Attingal, arising out of Crime No.1272 of 2016 of Kallambalam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, registered for the offences under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 323, 324 & 506(i) r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2nd respondent 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. 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 B affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that upon verification, it is understood that the affidavit 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.
7. Accordingly, all proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.
No.2456/2016 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-III, Attingal are quashed.
This Crl.M.C is allowed as above.
