Abdul Rahiman @ Abdu Koppa and others v. The State of Kerala and Deepak C.H.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JULY 2013/2ND SRAVANA, 193** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3065 of 2013** **----------------------------------[C.C.NO.354/2012 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE'S COURT,KASARAGOD, CRIME NO. 236/2012 OF VIDYANAGAR POLICE STATION , KASARGOD DISTRICT]** **...............** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 11:** **------------------------------------------------** **1. ABDUL RAHIMAN @ ABDU KOPPA, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. ABBAS, RESIDING AT NEW KOPPA HOUSE, MUTTATHODY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **2. ABDUL KHADER, AGED 24 YEARS,** - **S/O. B.M. IBRAHIM, RESIDING AT KALANTHAR MANZIL, NEW KOPPA, MUTTATHODY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **3. SHAHUL HAMEED @ SHAHUL, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED, RESIDING AT MURSHITHA MANZIL, NIZAMUDEEN NAGAR, KOPPA, MUTTATHODY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **4. JAFFERBIN ABBOBACKER @ JAFFER, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. ABOOBACKER, RESIDING AT FAJIRSADIK MANZIL, NEW KOPPA, MUTTATHODY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **5. EJAS, S/O. ABBAS,AGED 20 YEARS, RESIDING AT EJAS MANZIL, NEW KOPPA, MUTTATHODY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **6. RIZWAN @ EJAS,** - **S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGED 20 YEARS, RESIDING AT NEW KOPPA, MUTTATHODY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **7. KHALEEL @ THONDY KHALEEL, S/O. ABDUL RAHIMAN (LATE) , AGED 25 YEARS, RESIDING AT KANNIKKAD HOUSE, NEW KOPPA, MUTTATHODY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **8. SIDDIQUE @ AUTO DRIVER SIDDIQUE, S/O. MUHAMMED, AGED 24 YEARS, RESIDING AT SIDDIQU MANZIL, NEW KOPPA, MUTTATHODY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **Prv.** **CRL.M.C. NO.3065/2013-C:** **9. ABDUL HASHIQ KOPPA, S/O. HASSAINAR,AGED 22 YEARS, RESIDING AT ASHIQ MANZIL, OLD KOPPA, MUTTATHODY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **10. IRSHAD @ APPOOTTY, S/O. A.B. MUHAMMED, AGED 21 YEARS, RESIDING AT NEW KOPPA, MUTTATHODY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **11. ABDUL KABEER @ KABEER, S/O. MUHAMMED, AGED 24 YEARS, RESIDING AT MANDHALI HOUSE, NAIF ROAD, NEW KOPPA, MUTTATHODY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU.** ## **RESPONDENT/STATE:** - **--------------------------------** **1. THE STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VIDYANAGAR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **2. DEEPAK.C.H., AGED 19 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, RESIDING AT SOPANAM, M.G. NAGAR, PANNIPPARA, HIDAYATH NAGAR.P.O., MADHUR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAJESH VIJAYAN, R2 BY ADV. SMT.BINDUMOL JOSEPH.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Prv.** **CRL.M.C. NO.3065/2013:** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:** **ANNEXURE.A1: THE TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 236/2012 OF VIDYANAGAR POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE.A2: THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 1-7-2013 SWORN IN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE.A3: THE TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE MEMO OF EVIDENCE IN CRIME NO. 236/12 OF VIDYANAGAR POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE.A4: THE AFFIDAVIT DTD. 01/07/2013 SWORN IN BY THE R.2.** ## **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE.** **Prv.** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J --------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No. 3065 of 2013 ----------------------------------------** Dated this the 24[th] day of July, 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 petitioners, who are accused in Crime No.236/2012 of Vidyanagar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324 r/w Section 149 of I.P.C., with a prayer to quash Annexure-A1 Final Report and all proceedings proceedings pursuant to it in Crime No.236/2012 of Vidyanagar Police Station, which is now pending as C.C.No.354/2012 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasaragod as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegations leveled against the petitioners in Annexure-A1 final report is that on 16/4/2012 at 7.30 p.m., the accused persons, because of their previous enmity towards the defacto complainant, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons such as stick and iron rode and assaulted the defacto complainant by wrongfully restraining him, thereby the accused committed the above offences. Now, the case of the petitioners is that the entire disputes between 2 ## **Crl.M.C.No. 3065 of 2013** the parties are settled and the defacto complainant who is the second respondent herein has filed Annexure-4 affidavit dated 1/7/2013 and also filed Crl.M.A.No.5910/2013. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the second respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners 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. 5. 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 petitioners and he has no grievance against her. 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. In the given **Crl.M.C.No. 3065 of 2013** 3 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 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 Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324 r/w 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 petitioners 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 case, the Supreme Court has held as follows:- _“57. The position that emerges from the_ **Crl.M.C.No. 3065 of 2013** 4 _above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a 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 pre-dominatingly 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,_ 5 ## **Crl.M.C.No. 3065 of 2013** _because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the 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. Thus, 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 the decisions cited supra, this Criminal M.C. can be 6 ## **Crl.M.C.No. 3065 of 2013** allowed granting the relief as sought for. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing Annexure-A1 and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in in Crime No.236/2012 of Vidyanagar Police Station and all further proceedings thereto. **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** AS