Crl.MC/3132/2012 of SHAJI, S/O.VARKEY Vs STATE OF KERALA on 31 December 2012

O R D E R

Both these Crl.M.Cs have been filed seeking for identical reliefs namely, to quash Annexure-1 charge sheet. Thepetitioners in Crl.M.C.No.3132/2012 are accused Nos.1 to 3 inC.C.No.103/2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,NedumkandamandthepetitionersinCrl.M.C.No.3641/2012 are accused Nos.1 and 2 inC.C.No.101/2010 of the same court.

2. The petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.3132/2012 point out that they are falsely implicated in Crime No.31/2010 of SanthanparaPolice Station, Idukki District. Therein the offences alleged areunder Section 452, 294(b), 324, 323, 427 and 34 of Indian PenalCode. It is alleged therein that the occurrence on 22.01.2010happened due to political rivalry. The alleged offence is that theyattacked the de facto complainant. It is pointed out that they are active workers of different political parties and only because of the political rivalry, the case happened to be registered. Anothercase was also happened to be registered as Crime No.33/2010involving the de facto complainant namely, Sri.Paulraj. Now boththese cases have been re-registered as C.C.No.103/2010 andC.C.No.101/2010. The disputes between the parties have beenamicably settled also.

3. It is now pointed out that after recording the fact that

the disputes have been settled between the parties, the samewas informed to the court. What remains is the questioning ofthe accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Since some of theoffences are non compoundable, the court is not permitting thepetitioners to compound the offence. It is averred thatcompounding of the offence between the petitioners and thede facto complainant will not affect the interest of the society.The same is the plea raised in Crl.M.C.No.3641/2012 by thepetitioners who are accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.101/2010.

4. Heard parties. Learned counsel appearing for the respective parties in both Crl.M.Cs submitted that the disputeshave been settled between the parties and therefore, this Courtmay exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C asotherwise it will cause acute hardship to the petitioners. LearnedPublic Prosecutor also submitted that there is a settlementbetween the parties. The petitioners point out that this Court canpermit the petitioners to compound the offence in the light of thedecision of the Apex Court in Shijivs.Radhika(2011 (4) KLT682 (SC)) and that of this Court in Ettoopvs.Kunhikannan(2005 (2) KLT 429).

5. In Shijivs.Radhika(2011 (4) KLT 682 (SC)), the offences alleged were under Sections 354 and 394 of IPC. Inparagraph 8 of the said judgment, the Apex Court was of theview that the High Court is entitled to quash the proceedings if itcomes to the conclusion that allowing the proceedings to continuewould be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends ofjustice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed. In acriminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court inquashing the proceedings in the interest of justice. The ApexCourt relied upon various judgments while considering the saidissue and finally in paragraph 13, it has been held that “it ismanifest that simply because an offence is not compoundableunder S.320 IPC is by itself no reason for the High Court torefuse exercise of its power under S.482 Cr.P.C”. Finally it is also observed in paragraph 14 as follows:

“.....That being so, continuance of theprosecution where the complainant is not ready tosupport the allegations which are now described byher as arising out of some “misunderstanding andmisconception” will be a futile exercise that will serveno purpose....” and finally the proceedings werequashed.

6. In Ettoopvs.Kunhikannan(2005 (2) KLT 429), this Court, after finding that the parties have settled their disputes,quashed the proceedings by invoking the power under Section482 Cr.P.C. Therein, this Court exercised the power evidently in the light of the settlement between the parties. In a recent judgment of the Supreme Court namely, Dimpey Gujral, W/o.Vivek Gujral & Ors.vs.Union Territory throughAdministrator, U.T. Chandigarh & Ors.(2012 (11) Scale589), the above principles were reiterated.

7. Herein, on consideration of the matter, it can be seen that the political rivalry has resulted in registration of crimes andboth parties have now realized and have settled their disputes. Itis in that regard, they are seeking the aid of this Court to quashthe complaint itself to meet the ends of justice.

8. In the light of the scenario as pointed out above by the

learned counsel appearing for the parties, there will not be anypurpose in proceeding with the matter especially as the partiesfigure as complainant and accused in both the cases. Therefore,actually the two cases are registered as case and counter case.No serious offence against the society at large is also involved inthe matter.

In the light of the above, the Crl.M.Cs are allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.103/2010 and C.C.No.101/2010 pendingbefore the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nedumkandamare quashed. The petitioners will produce the certified copy ofthe order before the court below.

T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIRJUDGE

smp