A B Abdul Kalam @ A.B. Kalam and others v. The State of Kerala and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR** **FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2013/22ND CHAITHRA 1935** **Crl.MC.No. 1169 of 2013 ()** **---------------------------** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN Crl.MC.2090/2012 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 14-08-2012 IN SC.951/2012 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC-III), KASARAGODE** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:** **-------------------------------** **1. A B ABDUL KALAM @ A.B. KALAM, AGED 37 YEARS S/O.A.B.KUNHAMU, RESIDING AT A.B.K.HOUSE, AMMANKODE POVVAL, MULIYAR VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **2. A.B.MUHAMED RIYAZ, AGED 22 YEARS S/O.A.B.KUNHAMU, RESIDING AT A.B.K.HOUSE, AMMANKODE POVVAL, MULIYAR VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** ## **3. A.B.MUHAMMED IQUBAL, AGED 33 YEARS** - **S/O.A.B.KUNHAMU, RESIDING AT A.B.K.HOUSE, AMMANKODE POVVAL, MULIYAR VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU** ## **COMPLAINANT(S)/STATE:** **------------------------------** ## **1. THE STATE OF KERALA** **THOUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER** **ADHUR POLICE STATION, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.** ## **2. A.B.HARIS, AGED 35 YEARS** **S/O.A.B.ABDUL RAHMAN HAJI, RESIDING AT SALMAN MANZIL POVVAL, MULIYAR VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671 542.** **-2-** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1169 of 2013 ()** ## **3. A.B.RAFEEQUE, AGED 30 YEARS** **S/O.ABDUL RAHMAN HAJI, RESIDING AT 8TH MILE HOUSE POVVAL, MULIYAR VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671 542** ## **4. A.B.MAHIN, AGED 66 YEARS** **S/O.ABDULLA, RESIDING AT NASIYA MANZIL, AMMANGOD POVVAL, MULIYAR VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671 542** **R2-4 BY ADV. SMT.BINDUMOL JOSEPH** **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-04-2013, ANONG WITH CRL.M.C.NO. 1171/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1169 of 2013 ()** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS** **ANNEXURE A1:THE TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.442/2010 OF ADHUR POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE A2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.442/2010 OF ADUR POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE A3:THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 7/2/2013 SWORN IN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **ANNEXURE A4: THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 7/2/2013 SWORN IN BY the 3RD RESPONDENT.** **ANNEXURE A5: THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 7/2/2013 SWORN IN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** **ANNEXURE A6: THE TRUE COY OF THE ORDER DATED 14/8/2012 IN CRL.M.C. NO.2090/2012 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :** **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE.** **dlk** ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ========================== CRL.M.C. Nos. 1169 & 1171 OF 2013 ==========================** Dated this the 12[th] day of April, 2013 ## **ORDER** Accused Nos. 1 to 3 in S.C.No.951 of 2012 on the files of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc-III), Kasaragode arising from crime No.442 of 2010 of Adhur Police Station are the petitioners in the former miscellaneous case and the first petitioner herein is the second respondent in the latter case. In fact, he is the defacto complainant as also the injured. Respondents 2 and 3 in the former petition and four others are the petitioners in the latter M.C and they are the accused in S.C.No.811 of 2012 on the files of the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kasargode arising from crime No.93 of 2011 of Adhur Police Station. One A.B. Mahin who is the fourth respondent in the former petition and respondents 2 and 3 had sustained injuries in the alleged attack that culminated in the registration of crime No.442 of 2010 of Adhur Police Station. The **Crl.M.C.1169 & 1171/13** 2 accusation against the petitioners in the former petition is one of commission of offences under sections 323, 326 and 308 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and against the petitioners in the latter Crl.M.C is one of commission of offences under sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 326, 506(ii) and 308 read with section 149 IPC. In both the cases, the final reports laid in the respective crime has been produced and marked as Annexure-A2. The prayers in both these petitions are for quashment of Annexure-A2 final report and all further proceedings pursuant thereto pending against them in the respective session cases mentioned above pending before the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Kasargode. On account of the involvement of the common parties in both these cases and on consent these matters were heard jointly and are disposed of by a common order. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions, learned counsel appearing for respondents and also the learned Public Prosecutor. I do not think it necessary to deal with the contentions raised in these petitions in detail in view of the factum of **Crl.M.C.1169 & 1171/13** 3 settlement of the disputes that constrained the respective defacto complainants in both the petitions to cause registration of the respective crimes, as is evident from the respective affidavits filed in these petitions. Annexures-A3 to A5 are the respective affidavits sworn in by respondents 3 to 4 in the former Crl.M.C. In the said affidavits, they have deposed regarding the factum of settlement of the entire disputes that ultimately resulted in the registration of crime No.442 of 2010 Adhur Police Station. A perusal of the said affidavits would reveal that the nature of the cases involved is purely personal and private and that they have amicably settled entire disputes. In the light of the settlement arrived at between themselves and the petitioners, they did not wish to prosecute the petitioners, any further. It is also stated that they got no objection in quashing Annexure-A2 final report laid in Crime No.442 of 2010 of Adhur Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant thereto pending against the petitioners/accused in S.C.No.951 of 2012 now pending before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kasaragode. The charge under section 308 is made against the petitioners in the former Crl.M.C./the **Crl.M.C.1169 & 1171/13** 4 accused therein on the allegation that if the second respondent/CW1 had not parried the stabbing by the first petitioner and also the hit with the iron rod aimed at the head by the second petitioner, they would have resulted in his death. The fourth respondent/CW3 in that case had sustained a fracture on his little finger. CW2 viz., the third respondent has also sustained an injury on his knee. As noticed hereinbefore, in Annexures- A3 to A5, respondents 2 to 4 viz., CW1, CW3 and CW2 have explicitly stated that they have settled the entire issues with the petitioners and in such circumstances, they got no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners in the former Crl.M.C.. As already noticed hereinbefore, in the latter Crl.M.C, the allegation against the petitioners therein is one of commission of offences under sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 326, 506(ii), 308 and 120(b) read with section 149 IPC. The charge under section 308 is made against the petitioners alleging that but for the timely evasion, of the attack by the third petitioner with an iron rod, it would have resulted in the death of the second respondent. True that he sustained injuries in the attack on him using iron rod. **Crl.M.C.1169 & 1171/13** 5 The second respondent therein viz., the defacto complainant and also the person who sustained the injuries in the attack by the petitioners therein has sworn in Annexure-A3 affidavit. It is stated therein that the entire disputes between himself and the petitioners therein have been settled amicably and in the light of the said settlement, he got no objection at all for quashing Annexure-A2 final report and all further proceedings pursuant thereto pending against petitioners in S.C.No.811 of 2012 on the files of the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Kasaragode. 3. Though the respective accused in the aforesaid sessions cases have been accused of commission of non-compoundable offences as well, the affidavits filed by respective defacto complainants and the injured persons in the above cases would reveal that the entire disputes that constrained them to cause registration of the concerned crimes have been settled amicably. The nature of the injuries and the affidavits sworn in by the defacto complainants and the injured persons persuade me to accept the contention of the **Crl.M.C.1169 & 1171/13** 6 petitioners that the case involved is private and personal in nature and consequently to act upon the settlement arrived at between the parties. When the injured as also the defacto complainants, on their own volition, settled the entire disputes that led to the registration of the respective crimes with a view to bring home friendliness among them, compelling continuation of criminal proceedings against the respective accused persons would not fetch any fruitful purpose. Evidently, in view of the said circumstances, the chance for a successful prosecution against the respective accused persons in the aforementioned sessions cases is bleak. In the said very circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that continuation of criminal proceedings against the respective petitioners in both these petitions have become absolutely unnecessary. Going by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in **B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003 (2) KLT 1062 (SC)),** the mere fact that the final reports carried allegation of non-compoundable offences and provisions under section 320 Cr.P.C would not and could not limit or affect the exercise of the inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C by the High Courts if **Crl.M.C.1169 & 1171/13** 7 the case on hand is otherwise a fit case for its invocation. In these cases, the facts expatiated above would reveal that no fruitful purpose could be served by continuation of criminal proceedings as they have become absolutely unnecessary. In such circumstances, in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab** [ **2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)],** it is the duty of this Court to prevent continuation of such proceedings, in the interest of justice. I am of the view that the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners would not be in the interest of justice and its continuance would also result in sheer wasting of the invaluable time of the court. In view of the discussions as above, the following orders are passed: Crl.M.C No.1169/2013 This Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-A2 final report laid in crime No.442 of 2010 of Adhur Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant thereto pending against the petitioners therein before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-III), Kasaragode in S.C.No.951 of 2012 are hereby quashed. **Crl.M.C.1169 & 1171/13** 8 Crl.M.C.No.1173/2013 This Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-A2 final report laid in crime No.93 of 2011 of Adhur Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners therein before the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Kasaragod in S.C.No.811 of 2012 are hereby quashed. ## **Sd/-** **C.T. RAVIKUMAR** **(JUDGE)** **spc/** **Crl.M.C.1169 & 1171/13** 9 **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **JUDGMENT September, 2010** # **Crl.M.C.1169 & 1171/13** 10