Court’s Decision
The Kerala High Court quashed the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence recorded by the Judicial Magistrate and the Sessions Court in two criminal cases—C.C. No. 905 of 2003 and C.C. No. 508 of 2004—after noting that both matters were case and counter-case between the same parties and had been amicably resolved through mediation. Justice Dr. Kauser Edappagath held:
“In view of the settlement, the impugned convictions and sentences in both cases are hereby set aside and the accused are acquitted.”
The Court thus disposed of both Criminal Revision Petitions (Crl. R.P. Nos. 1785 of 2014 and 396 of 2015) in terms of the mediated settlement and directed that the memorandum of settlement shall form part of the order.
Facts
- Crl.R.P. No. 1785 of 2014 was filed against the conviction and sentence imposed in C.C. No. 905 of 2003, which was upheld by the Additional Sessions Court-II, Manjeri in Crl.A. No. 315 of 2007.
- Crl.R.P. No. 396 of 2015 was filed against the conviction and sentence imposed in C.C. No. 508 of 2004, which was upheld in Crl.A. No. 334 of 2010 by the same Sessions Court.
- Both criminal cases were case and counter-case arising out of the same set of incidents involving opposing parties.
- The parties were referred to mediation, and pursuant to the process, both the accused and the de facto complainants entered appearance and arrived at a mutually agreeable settlement.
- The terms of settlement included an express agreement by both sides that they did not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings any further.
Issues
- Whether the High Court could set aside concurrent findings of conviction and sentence in a case and counter-case on the basis of a mediated settlement.
- Whether the settlement reached through mediation was sufficient to acquit the accused in both criminal cases.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The petitioners contended that the disputes giving rise to both criminal cases had been amicably resolved through a mediation process.
- It was submitted that both parties voluntarily agreed to settle the matter and had entered into a memorandum of understanding to not proceed with the cases.
Respondent’s Arguments
- The Public Prosecutor represented the State and acknowledged the settlement reached between the parties.
- There was no objection raised to the disposal of the revision petitions in terms of the settlement.
Analysis of the Law
Although the order does not explicitly elaborate on statutory provisions or judicial tests, it implies the exercise of the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC and its revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397–401 CrPC. The acceptance of the mediated settlement aligns with the principle that courts can quash criminal proceedings involving private disputes—particularly in cases where continuation of prosecution would serve no useful purpose.
Precedent Analysis
The order does not cite any prior judgments, but it is in line with the Supreme Court’s consistent view that:
- In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, it was held that courts may quash criminal proceedings even in non-compoundable offences if the dispute is essentially private and the settlement serves justice.
- The courts have also recognized in cases like Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, the power to quash proceedings in case and counter-case situations when parties settle the matter.
Although not referenced, the judgment reflects these principles.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court observed that:
- The cases involved were case and counter-case between the same parties.
- A valid and voluntary mediated settlement had been reached.
- Both parties clearly indicated they no longer wished to pursue the prosecution.
- In such circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose.
Accordingly, the Court concluded that the interest of justice would be best served by acquitting the accused and disposing of the revision petitions in terms of the agreement.
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court set aside the convictions and sentences in both cases and acquitted the accused. The Court ordered:
“These criminal revision petitions are disposed of in terms of the settlement. The memorandum of settlement agreement will form part of this order.”
Implications
- The judgment affirms the growing role of mediation in criminal matters involving personal disputes.
- It reinforces that in case and counter-case scenarios, where mutual settlement is reached, courts can exercise discretion to quash proceedings.
- The ruling promotes resolution through alternative dispute mechanisms in suitable criminal cases, especially where both parties desire to end the dispute amicably.
