Abdul Rashid and others v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/9TH ASWINA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 5147 of 2014 ()** **--------------------------CRIME NO. 529/2014 OF THAMARASSERY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT** **---------------------** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED :** **--------------------------------------** ## **1. ABDUL RASHID,** **S/O.MOIDEEN KUTTY, AGED 36 YEARS ARONGOTTIL, THEKKINTHOTTATIL POST PERUMPALLY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** ## **2. MOIDEEN KUTTY,** **S/O.POKER, AGED 62 YEARS ARONGOTTIL, KODUVALLY KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** ## **3. HUSSAIN,** **S/O.KADIRI, AGED 52 YEARS THEKKINTHOTTATIL, POST PERUMPALLY KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** ## **4. ABDUL AZEEZ,** **S/O.MOHAMMED, AGED 42 YEARS EDUKUNNUMMAL, THATCHAN POYIL THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE, COMPLAINANT AND INJURED :** **--------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.** ## **2. MUHAMMED ALI,** **SON OF ABDUL KALAM, 28 YEARS, KARIMBAYIL, EENGAPUZHA PUTHUPPADI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** ## **3. NAUSHAD** **SON OF LATE MOHAMMED, PALATTUKKAL HOUSE, PUTHUPADI KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 305.** **...2/-** **Crl.MC.No. 5147 of 2014 () -2-** ## **4. SHAMEER,** **SON OF IBRAHIM, 29 YEARS MANNARAYIL HOUSE, POST PUTHUPPADI KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 305.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.K. JAYAKUMAR** **R2 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.B.HARISH KUMAR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-10-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Mn** **...3/-** **Crl.MC.No. 5147 of 2014 () -------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** |**PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :**|**PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :**|| |---|---|---| |**---------------------------------------------**||| |**ANNEXURE-1:**|**COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO.529/14 OF THE**|| ||**THAMARASSERY POLICE STATION - KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.**|| |**ANNEXURE-2:**|**AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY RESPONDENTS 2 TO**|**4.**| |**ANNEXURE-3:**|**COPY OF THE FIS LEADING TO ANNEXURE I.**|| |**RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL**||| |**-----------------------------------------------------------**||| |||**//TRUE COPY//**| |||**P.A. TO JUDGE**| |**Mn**||| ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.5147 of 2014 ------------------------------Dated this the 1[st] day of October, 2014.** ## **O R D E R** 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 the accused in Crime No.529 of 2014 of Thamarassery Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 308, 294(b) and 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in the above crime, as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that, the 2[nd] respondent/de facto complainant is a contractor by profession and about 2 years back he had completed the construction of a house for the 1[st] petitioner herein and towards payment for the same, the petitioner owed him an amount of Rs.1 lakh and though the same was repeatedly **Crl.M.C.No.5147 of 2014** 2 demanded, the 1[st] petitioner was not paying the same. It is alleged that on 18.7.2014 at about 6 p.m., when the de facto complainant went to the house of the 1[st] petitioner and demanded the amount of Rs.1 lakh, the 1[st] petitioner pointed out to him the faulty workmanship and the damage thereby caused to the house and he pointed out the leaking portions and asked him to rectify the same. The de facto complainant agreed to carry out the necessary repairs but then again asked for the money due. At this point of time, he was restrained, then abused and ultimately slapped on the face and the other petitioners herein attacked the brother and friend of the complainant who were with him and thereby committed the offences as alleged by the prosecution. Now, the case of the petitioners is that the matter is settled out of court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as respondent nos.2 to 4. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. **Crl.M.C.No.5147 of 2014** 3 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, as per Annexure-2 affidavit sworn into by respondent nos.2 to 4. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above case is abuse of process of law and proceedings. 5. The learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 4, who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondents submitted that the above respondents, who are the de facto complainant and injured respectively, do not intends to proceed any further against the petitioners and they have no grievance against the petitioners. 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 facts and circumstances of the case and especially in the light of the settlement arrived **Crl.M.C.No.5147 of 2014** 4 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 under Sections 341, 323, 324, 308, 294(b) and 506 r/w 34 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 respondent nos.2 to 4, it appears to me that the de facto complainant and the injured have 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 Gian Singh's case, the **Crl.M.C.No.5147 of 2014** 5 ## 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 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, 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 **Crl.M.C.No.5147 of 2014** 6 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. According to me, 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 decision cited supra, this Criminal M.C. can be allowed granting the relief as sought for. **Crl.M.C.No.5147 of 2014** 7 In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in Crime No.529 of 2014 of Thamarassery Police Station. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge.** ami/ //True copy// P.A.to Judge