Sadham vs State Of Kerala

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J

Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash all proceedings against them.

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1689/2023 of Chadayamangalam Police Station, registered for the offences under Sections 294(b), 341, 324, 427 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 apart from Section 92(b) of Rights of Persons with Disability Act, 2016. The 3rd respondent is the de facto complainant.

According to the prosecution, on 10.12.2023, while the de facto complainant, who is a disabled person, was sitting in front of his shop, the accused abused him and hit him with his car twice, for failing to provide a cigarette, and thereby committed the offences alleged.

Heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner  and  the  learned counsel for the respondent, apart from the learned Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter has been settled and hence the proceedings against the petitioner ought to be quashed. It was also submitted that, considering the nature of offences alleged, no purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings.

In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [(2012) 10 SCC 303], the Apex Court has held 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. This view was reiterated in Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another [(2014) 9 SCC 653].

Even though the offence under Section 307 of IPC has been alleged against the petitioner, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the de facto complainant, and the settlement arrived at between the parties and also bearing in mind the hardships that will be caused to the de facto complainant, as he is a disabled person, if the trial is continued, I am of the view that the victim’s interest to procure peace ought to be given due regard.

I have also perused Annexure-B affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that upon verification, it is understood that the affidavit is genuine, and the de facto complainant stands by the contents thereof. I am satisfied that the matter has been settled and no public interest is involved in this case. There is no impediment for granting the prayer for quashing. The continuance of the proceedings will only be an exercise in futility.

Accordingly, all proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No.1689/2023 of Chadayamangalam Police Station, are quashed. This Crl.M.C is allowed as above.