Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 123 (KER)

DILEEP ELDHO PAUL v. SANGEETHA

2017-01-16

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.

body2017
ORDER : 1. This petition is filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') with a prayer to invoke the extraordinary inherent powers and to quash the pending criminal proceedings. 2. The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in S.C.No.721 of 2015 on the file of the Sessions court, Ernakulam. In the aforesaid case they face indictment under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under Sections 294 (b), 323 and 447 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 3. The prosecution allegation is that on 15.2.2015 at about 9 pm, the petitioners herein in furtherance of their common intention uttered abusive words and called the respondents 1 to 3 by their caste name. It is also alleged that they assaulted the respondents 2 and 3 and caused bodily injuries. 4. Heard the submissions advanced. 5. The party respondents appeared through counsel and referring to Annexures A4 to A6 affidavit submits that they have no subsisting grievance as against the petitioners and that they do not wish that the criminal proceedings against the petitioners should continue any further. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that no other cases are reported against the petitioners. 7. The position with regard to quashing of proceedings on the basis of compromise between the parties is by now well settled. In Gian singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex Court has laid down 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. It was observed as follows : "61. In other words, the High Court must 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 the wrongdoer 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(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings." 8. The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Narinder singh v. State of Punjab. The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Narinder singh v. State of Punjab. (2014) 6 SCC 466 , the pertinent observations which are as under: XXXXXXXXXXXX 29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. xxxxxxx xxxxxxx 9. The offence committed by the petitioners cannot be said to be grave and serious having ingredients of extreme mental depravity. It also does not appear that the offence in this case will have a serious impact on the society. It is felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and secure the ends of justice. Even otherwise, persisting with the prosecution would be nothing but a waste of time as the prospects of conviction would be bleak. 10. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court will be well justified in invoking its extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings. In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A3 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as S.C.No.721 of 2015 on the file of the Sessions court, Ernakulam are quashed.