Siva Anand @ Siva v. The Inspector of Police

O R D E R This petition has been filed seeking quashment of First Information Report (FIR) in Crime No.30 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent police.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that on 30.01.2022, the petitioners trespassed into the coconut farm of the defacto complainant, damaged the fencing of the said coconut farm and abused the defacto complainant in filthy language thereby, basing on a complaint given by the defacto complainant, a case was registered against the petitioner in Crime No.30 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 427 and 506(ii) of IPC.

¶3It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused 1, 2, 4 and5 as well as the second respondent/defacto complainant that the parties have compromised the disputes between them amicably before the High Court Legal Services Committee attached to this Court and the settlement agreement duly signed by the parties and also by their respective counsel has been filed before this Court. However, the question is whether this Court can permit the petitioners to compromise and basing on such compromise, whether the criminal case against the petitioners in Crime No.30 of 2022 can be quashed.

¶4In the case of Ramgopal and Ors. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2021 (6) CTC 240, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reiterated the exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences. The relevant paragraphs read as under:- "18. It is now a well crystalized axiom that plenary jurisdiction of this Court to impart complete justice under Article 142 cannot ipso facto be limited or restricted by ordinary statutory provisions. It is also noteworthy that even in the absence of an express provision akin to Section 482 Cr.P.C. conferring powers on the Supreme Court to abrogate and set aside criminal proceedings, the jurisdiction exercisable under Article 142 of the Constitution embraces this Court with scopious powers to quash criminal proceedings also, so as to secure complete justice. In doing so, due regard must be given to the overarching objective of sentencing in the criminal justice system, which is grounded on the sub-lime philosophy of maintenance of peace of the collective and that the rationale of placing an individual behind bars is aimed at his reformation.

¶19We thus sumup and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences 'compoundable' within the statutory framework, the extra-ordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations."

¶5The High Court Legal Services Committee attached to this Court was directed to verify the identities of the defacto complainant and the accused with reference to the acceptable identity cards like Aadhar Card etc. and also make an informal inquiry as to whether the defacto complainant has been accepting for compromise voluntarily. Accordingly, the Officer incharge of the High Court Legal Services Committee/ Registrar (Judicial) sent a report after verifying their identities. Further, the accused in this case were charged with the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 427 and 506(ii) of IPC. This incident allegedly happened while the petitioners were consuming liquors in the farm of the petitioner. The petitioners and the second respondent are residing in the same street of the village and they have settled their disputes and are maintaining good relationship due to the intervention of relatives and friends. In case if trial is conducted, the defacto complainant required to appear before the Court to give evidence against the petitioners thereby irrespective of the fact whether the petitioners or the defacto complainant, the animosity between them will continue. When both parties are coming together to resolve the disputes amicably and wanted to compromise the criminal case and when it is not on account of coercion and undue influence, this Court is of the opinion that the compromise can be recorded in order to meed the complete justice. Accordingly, this compromise is recorded.

¶6In view of the the settlement arrived between the parties, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by keeping the matter pending and inclined to quash all further proceedings in Crime No. 30 of 2022 pending on the file of the first respondent police.

¶7In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the entire proceedings in Crime No.30 of 2022, pending on the file of the first respondent police is hereby quashed. The settlement agreement is recorded and the same shall form part of this order.

11.09.2023 NCC : Index : Internet : PKN To

¶1The Inspector of Police, Palavoor Police Station, Palavoor, Tirunelveli District.

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. DR.D.NAGARJUN,J PKN Dated: 11.09.2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on 29.08.2023 Delivered on 11.09.2023 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN 1.Siva Anand @ Siva 2. Sakthi @ Swamynathan 3.Mathavan 4.Ramesh ... Petitioners/ Accused 1,2,4,5 Vs. 1. The Inspector of Police, Palavoor Police Station, Palavoor, Tirunelveli District. (Crime No.30/2022) ... 1st Respondent/ Complainant 2. Sahaya Spelman ... 2nd Respondent / Defacto complainant PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the entire records relating to the FIR in Crime No.30 of 2022 dated 29.05.2023 pending on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr.S.Palanivelayutham For Respondents : Mr.SS.Madhavan Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1 Mr.S.Jeyakumar for R2