A. Shereef v. State of Kerala and A. M. Siddique

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/20TH JYAISHTA 1935** **Crl.MC.No. 2325 of 2013 () --------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 462/2009 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE - 1,KASARAGOD DATED 24/6/2010** ## **PETITIONER/6TH ACCUSED :** **---------------------** **A.SHEREEF, AGED 26 YEARS S/O.ABOOBACKER, R/A.CHALAKKARA, POVVAL MULIYAR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DIST** **BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU** **RESPONDENTS/STATE :** **1. THE STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER ADHUR POLICE STATION, REP BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031** **2. A M SIDDIQUE @ ABOOBACKER SIDDIQUE, AGED 24 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMED, R/A.AMMANGOD, POVALL MULIYAR POST, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DIST-671542** **R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S. HYMA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **BP** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2325 of 2013 ()** ## **---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **----------------------** **ANNEX A1:- THE TRUE COIPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO 90/2009 OF ADHUR POLICE STATION** - **ANNEX.A2:- THE TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO 90/2009 OF ADHUR POLICE STATION** - **ANNEX.A3:- THE TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD 24/6/2010 IN CC NO 462/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED JFCM COURT , KASARAGOD** - **ANNEX.A4:- THE TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE MEMO OF EVIDENCE IN CRIME NO 90/.2009 OF ADHUR POLICE STATION** - **ANNEX.A5:- THE AFFIDAVIT DTD 10/5/2013 SWORN IN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE NOTARY PUBLIC** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.** **-----------------------** ## **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **BP** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.2325 of 2013 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 10[th] day of June, 2013** ## **ORDER** The above petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') at the instance of the petitioner, who is the accused in L.P.C.No.62 of 2012 in C.C.No.675 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kasaragod which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No.90 of 2009 of Adhur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323 & 324 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure-A2 final report and all further proceedings pursuant to it in Crime No.90 of 2009 of Adhur Police Station which is now pending as L.P.C.No.62 of 2012 in C.C.No.675 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kasaragod as the matter is settled out of court. Crl.M.C.No.2325/2013 :-2-: 2. The allegation in the above case is that on 17/4/2009 at 2 pm. the accused who are IUML activists because of their political enmity towards the de facto complainant formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with weapons such as stick, wrongfully restrained the 2[nd] respondent and assaulted him at Ammangod in Muliyar Village, and now, the case of the petitioners is that the matter is settled out of court. 3. It is also relevant to note that out of the 6 accused 5 of them faced trial in C.C.No.462 of 2009 of the court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kasaragod and they are acquitted as per Annexure-A3 judgment. In the said judgment the learned Magistrate has found that all the prosecution witnesses including PW.1 did not witness the incident and accordingly there are no evidence to fallen the accused with any criminal liability.` 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the second respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. Crl.M.C.No.2325/2013 :-3-: 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the above case, the matter is settled amicably between the parties to the dispute which is the subject matter of the above case. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above case is abuse of process of law and proceedings. The learned counsel for the second respondent who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondent submitted that the above respondent, who is the de facto complainant does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioner and he has no grievance against him. 6. I have carefully considered the above submissions of the respective counsel. I have verified the documents and materials produced along with the above petition which is marked as Annexure-A5 affidavit. In the given facts and circumstances of the case and especially in the light of the settlement arrived between the parties to the dispute, the learned Public Prosecutor has also no objection in allowing the Crl.M.C.No.2325/2013 :-4-: above petition. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, it can be seen that the offences involved in the above case are only under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323 & 324 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. which are more or less personal in nature and no public interest is involved. It is pertinent to note that though such offences are involved, the real parties to the dispute approached this Court after having amicably settled the matter. From the submission made by the counsel for the second respondent, it appears to me that the de facto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioner/accused in the light of the settlement arrived by them. In this juncture, it is relevant to note the decision of the Honourable Apex Court reported in **Gian Singh** v. **State of Punjab** [2012(4) KLT 108(SC)] in which the Supreme Court has held as follows:- _“57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a_ Crl.M.C.No.2325/2013 :-5-: _criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under S.320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz;(i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R. may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed.._ ## It is further held as follows:- “...... _... But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial,mercandile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the_ Crl.M.C.No.2325/2013 :-6-: _possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim........”_ According to me, in the light of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and particularly in view of the settlement arrived in the present case, the dictum laid in the above decision is applicable in the present case. I am of the view that as the parties to the dispute settled the issues amicably, it is the duty of this Court to promote and encourage such settlement, instead of compelling the parties to go on with the dispute. It is pertinent to note that since the matter is settled out of court, in the event of proceeding with the trial, there would not have any fruitful prosecution resulting the conviction of the accused, rather the net result would be sheer waste of judicial time and abuse of process of the court and proceedings. Thus, according to me, following Crl.M.C.No.2325/2013 :-7-: the decisions cited supra, this Criminal M.C. can be allowed granting the relief as sought for. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing all further proceedings pending against the petitioner in Annexure-A2 final report and all further proceedings in L.P.C.No.62 of 2012 in C.C.No.675 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kasaragod. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** skj True copy P.A. To Judge