Apex Court held that criminal cases having overwhelmingly and
predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the
purpose of quashing, particularly offences arising from
commercial, financial, mercantile, civil partnership or such like
transactions or the offences arising out of matrimonial relating to
dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically
private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their
entire dispute. In these category of cases, High Court may quash
criminal proceedings, if in its view, because of the compromise
between the offender and the victim, the possibility of a
conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case
would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and
extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the
criminal case despite full and complete settlement and
compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court may
consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of
justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation
of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process
of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim
and wrong-doer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is
appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer
to the above question is in affirmative the High Court shall be
well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
TUESDAY,THE 13TH DAY OF MAY 2014
Crl.MC.No. 2572 of 2014 ()
AREEPARAMBAN ANSAR ALI,
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
ANIL K. NARENDRAN,J.
Crl.M.C. NO. 2572 of 2014
Citation;MANU/KE/0342/2014
Petitioners are accused in C.C. No.1065/2009 on the file of
the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram, arising out
of Crime No. 217/2009 of Kondotty Police Station, registered
alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 326,
323, 324, 506 (i) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution allegation is that on 24.04.2009, at or about
24.00 hours, the accused carrying weapon like stick, reaper,
cycle chain etc., attacked the injured in connection with a football
tournament. A counter case was also registered against the
injured, who are arrayed as respondents 2 to 7 in this Crl.M.C., at
the instance of the petitioners and the same stands quashed by
this Court by judgment dated 04.12.2013 in Crl.M.C.
No.5837/2013. Now, the petitioners submit that the entire
dispute between the parties have been settled and in order to
substantiate the same Annexure C to E affidavit sworn by the
injured have been produced along with Crl.M.C., as per which the
dispute between the parties have already been settled amicably
and they have no intention to proceed against the petitioners.
Therefore, the prayer sought in this Crl.M.C. is to quash the
proceedings in C.C. No.1065/2009 on the file of the Judicial First
Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram.
2. Heard, the learned counsel for petitioners, learned Public
Prosecutor for the first respondent and the learned counsel
appearing for respondents 2 to 7.
3. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab 2012(4) KLT 108, the
Apex Court held that criminal cases having overwhelmingly and
predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the
purpose of quashing, particularly offences arising from
commercial, financial, mercantile, civil partnership or such like
transactions or the offences arising out of matrimonial relating to
dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically
private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their
entire dispute. In these category of cases, High Court may quash
criminal proceedings, if in its view, because of the compromise
between the offender and the victim, the possibility of a
conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case
would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and
extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the
criminal case despite full and complete settlement and
compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court may
consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of
justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation
of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process
of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim
and wrong-doer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is
appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer
to the above question is in affirmative the High Court shall be
well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.
4. The allegation against the petitioners is for commission
of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 326, 323,
324, 506 (i) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Now,
as evident from Annexure C to E affidavits sworn by respondents
2 to 7, who are the injured persons, the matter has been
amicably settled between the parties and the said injured persons
have no intention to proceed against the petitioners. The counter
case initiated at the instance of the petitioners against the said
respondents has also stands quashed by the judgment of this
Court in Crl.M.C. No.5837/2013.
5. In such circumstances, this is a fit case in which the
power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure can be invoked to quash the proceedings in C.C.
No.1065/2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court, Malappuram, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in
Gian Singh's case supra.
6. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and the
proceedings in C.C. No. 1065/2009 on the file of the Judicial First
Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram is quashed.
ANIL K. NARENDRAN
JUDGE
No comments:
Post a Comment