Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 17 (KER)

ABHILASH. v. M. VS DONA VINCENT

2017-01-04

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.

body2017
ORDER : 1. This petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code" for brevity) with a prayer to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioners 2. The petitioner is the accused in C.C. No. 1124 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-VIII, Kundannoor. In the aforesaid case, he face indictment under Sections 354A, 506 (1) of IPC and Section 119 (a) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011. 3. The prosecution allegation is that on 17.06.2015 at 11 am, the petitioner herein called the 1st respondent to the Central Bank near Fruity Junction and threatened her that he would show the messages sent by the 1st respondent to her husband and thereafter outraged her modesty. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that at the instance of well wishers and family members, the parties have decided to put an end to their discord and have decided to live in peace. According to the learned Counsel, the dispute is purely private in nature. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent, invited the attention of this Court to the affidavit filed by her and submitted that she has divorced her husband and she has no subsisting grievance. It is asserted that the disputes inter se have been settled and the continuance of criminal proceedings will only result in gross inconvenience and hardship. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions has submitted that the statement of the 1st respondent has been recorded and she has stated in unequivocal terms that the settlement arrived at is genuine. 6. I have considered the submissions. 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 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 questions 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. (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 petitioner 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-I final report and all proceddings pursuant thereto against the petitioner now pending as C.C.No.1124 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-VIII, Kundannoor are quashed.