ORDER
J.M. James, J.
1. Petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in C.C. No. 440/2004, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thalassery. The offences alleged against them are under Sections 341 and 506(ii) I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. Petitioners have preferred this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to quash Annexure-II complaint filed by the first respondent, the complainant, against them.
2. The interesting brief facts are that the petitioners, two Advocates of Thalassery Bar, are alleged to have wrongfully restrained the first respondent, also an Advocate of the same Bar, and criminally intimidated him, by threatening that if the first respondent continued to harass the second accused, he would not walk on his two legs. The 3rd accused in Annexure-II complaint also threatened the first respondent. Hence, he filed a complaint before the Magistrate and that had been forwarded to the Thalassery police, which, after investigation, referred the same, and issued Annexure-I refer notice to the first respondent. It was thereafter that Annexure-II complaint has been preferred before the Court below.
3. During the pendency of this petition, the parties have settled the matter among themselves. Counsel for the petitioners filed Crl.M.A. No. 2930/2005 stating that they have settled the matter among themselves, and as the first respondent-complainant is “completely laid up and not in a position to appear before the Court in person to file the compounding petition”, he requested the Advocate appearing for the petitioners to take steps to get the case quashed, as he did not want to proceed with the case. The said letter has been produced as Annexure-VII along with Crl.M.A.
4. When the case came up for consideration, the learned counsel Mr. Ramu Ramesh Chandra Bhanu entered appearance on behalf of the first respondent, and submitted that he has no objection in quashing the proceedings, as the first respondent had already settled the matter with the petitioners.
5. Though the parties have settled the matter among themselves, and Crl.M.A. No. 2930/2005 is stated to have been filed to that effect, a legal hurdle has come up before this Court, whether the matter could be compounded or not. Section 341 I.P.C. is compoundable, under Table-1 of Section 320(1) Cr.P.C. The same table further lays down that Section 506 I.P.C. could be compounded, “except when the offence is punishable with imprisonment for seven years”. In other words, the offence under Section 506(ii) I.P.C. is non compoundable.
6. In B.S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr. ((2003) 4 SCC 675), referring to Limaye v. State of Maharashtra ((1977) 4 SCC 551), the Apex Court held that the latter case did not lay down any general proposition limiting the power of the Court in quashing criminal proceedings or F.I.R. or complaint, as vested under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, the Court further took the view that for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, if the quashing of F.I.R. becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. The Court also cautioned that, it is however a different matter, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case, whether to exercise or not such a power.
7. In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and Ors. ((1977) 2 SCC 690), the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider and lay down the principle of quashing the proceedings of the lower Courts by the High Court. At page 703, the Court laid down as follows:-
“In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court’s inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a Court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the Legislature. The compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realisation of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction.”
8. In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and Ors. v. Sambhajirao Chandrajirao Angre and Ors. ((1988) 1 SCC 692), the Supreme Court held that while exercising inherent power of quashing under Section 482, it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case, whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue.
9. In the case at hand, the parties have settled the matter among themselves. They are all Advocates from the same bar. In a moment of anger and antagonism, the respondent had decided to file a complaint, which he had re-considered at a later stage. There may be occasions when temper of the Advocates may raise very high like any other human being. But when they later realise and shake hands, the Court must take the real intention of the involved persons and has to ensure that a spirit of cordiality and fraternity is allowed to be maintained among them, the members of the Bar. As observed by the Supreme Court in Munisamy’s case, cited above, the ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law, though justice has got to be administered according to the law made by the Legislature. Even if the prosecution is allowed to continue, in the case at hand, the chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak, and therefore, absolutely no useful purpose would be served by keeping the complaint on the file of the Court below. Therefore, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case where the prayer of the petitioners has to be granted, and I do so.
In view of the above discussions, I quash Annexure-II complaint now pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thalassery, as C.C. No. 440/2004.
Crl. M.C. is allowed accordingly.