Aabid, Sharafudheen and Mashood v. State of Kerala and Subair

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2016/12TH JYAISHTA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 3037 of 2016** ## **-------------------------** **CC 105/2016 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I,MANJERI CRIME NO. 468/2013 OF KARUVARAKUNDU POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM** **......** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 3,17, & 21:** **--------------------------------** **1. AABID, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.HAMSA HAJI, THAIKADAN HOUSE, KARUVARAKUND, MALAPPURAM DT. - 676 523.** ## **2. SHARAFUDHEEN, AGED 38 YEARS,** **S/O.MUHAMMED, CHERUMALA HOUSE, KANNATH, KARUVARAKUND, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 523.** **3. MASHOOD, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.SAITHALI, THEKUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KANNATH, KARUVARAKUND, MALAPPURAM DT. - 676 523.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.A.HAROON RASHEED** **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA,** **REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** ## **2. SUBAIR,** **AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, KAKKUNNAN HOUSE, KERALA AMSOM, CHERUMB DESOM, KANNATH, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DT., 676 523.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LILLY LESSLIE R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.R.REKHESH SHARMA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **msv/** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3037 of 2016** ## **------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:** **------------------------** - **A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.468/2013, KARUVARAKUND POLICE STATION** - **A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET FILED BEFORE COURT BY POLICE IN CRIME NO.468/2013, KARUVARAKUND POLICE STATION** - **A3 AFFIDAVIT DATED 19.4.2016 EXECUTED BY DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT/2ND RESPONDENT** - **A4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.1.2016 IN C.C.NO.210/2014 OF JFCM COURT -1, MANJERI.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: ------------------------** ## **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S.TO JUDGE** ## **Msv/** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 3037 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 2[nd] June, 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **ORDER** The petitioners herein are accused Nos. 3, 17 and 21 in C.C.No.105 of 2016 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Manjeri. The said case was registered on the basis of Crime No.468 of Karuvarakund Police Station registered at the instance of the second respondent herein for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, and 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Final report was laid before the jurisdictional Magistrate and the case was taken on file as C.C.No.210 of 2014. 2. The petitioners herein did not appear before court for trial. Trial was proceeded with against the other accused and as per Annexure A4 judgment dated 25.1.2016 in C.C.No.210 of 2014, , they were acquitted under Section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C.(hereinafter referred to as the “Code”). 3. After the acquittal of the other accused, the case as against the petitioners herein was re-numbered as Crl.M.C. No.3037 of 2016 -2- C.C.No.105 of 2016. It is submitted that the matter has been amicably between the rival parties and it is on its basis that the instant petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code, seeking to quash all further proceedings against the petitioners. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent. 5. Referring to Annexure A4 judgment of the learned Magistrate, it is submitted by the learned counsel that though a full fledged trial was held, the prosecution had miserably failed to bring home the guilt as against the accused. None of the witnesses spoke in terms of the prosecution case and this aspect was taken note of by the learned Magistrate while passing the order of acquittal. It is further submitted that at the instance of the mediators and well wishers the matter has since been settled. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the second Crl.M.C. No.3037 of 2016 -3- respondent, referring to Annexure A3 affidavit sworn to by the 2[nd] respondent submitted that no disputes exist between the parties any more and they have decided to live in peace and harmony. It is further submitted that the 2[nd] respondent does not intend or wish that the criminal proceedings against the petitioners herein should continue any further. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor was directed to obtain instructions and based on the same it is submitted that the State has no objection in acting on Annexure A3 affidavit as it would promote peace and harmony. It is also submitted that the petitioners are not persons with any criminal antecedents. 8. It is thus borne out from the submissions made at the bar that the parties have amicably settled their disputes with their free will and without any kind of pressure, influence or coercion. The compromise, it is felt, is voluntarily and genuine and can be acted upon. The law with regard to the settlement of criminal disputes on the Crl.M.C. No.3037 of 2016 -4- strength of an amicable resolution of the disputes between the parties is no more res integra. ## 9. **In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC** **303),** Apex Court has laid down 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 v. State of Punjab. (2014) 6 SCC 466) and Yogendra Yadav and Others V State of Jharkhand and Another 2014 (9) SCC 653 .** 10. It was held that the 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. It was held that certain categories of cases involving heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or Crl.M.C. No.3037 of 2016 -5- victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute as those offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. But those cases where the wrong is basically private or personnel in nature and those in which the parties have resolved their entire dispute could fittingly be quashed by this Court taking into account the compromise between the offender and victim. In such cases the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused and the _de facto_ complainant to great oppression and prejudice 11. After having anxiously considered the submissions it is felt that it would be unfair and contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding. It would only tantamount to abuse of process of law to subject the parties to the ordeal of a protracted criminal proceeding despite the settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer. Settlement will augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the parties to live in peace Crl.M.C. No.3037 of 2016 -6- and harmony. In the result, this petition is allowed and all further proceedings against the petitioners herein in C.C.No.105 of 2016 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Manjeri shall stand quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE** kp/-6.6.16