Abdul Salam T.K. v. State of Kerala and T.P. Kunhabdulla

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/22ND JYAISHTA 1935** **Crl.MC.No. 2150 of 2013 () --------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC 289/2011 of ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (ADHOC-III), KASARAGODE** **PETITIONER(S)/2ND ACCUSED :** **------------------------** **ABDUL SALAM T.K. AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED KUNHI RESIDING AT KUTHIRUMMEL HOUSE, PADNA VILLAGE HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU** **RESPONDENT/STATE :** **1. THE STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER CHANDERA POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682031.** **2. T.P.KUNHABDULLA, S/O.AHAMMED, AGED 56 YEARS RESIDING AT KALIKADAVATH HOUSE, PADNE VILLAGE HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT 671 312.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S.HYMA R2 BY ADV. SMT.BINDUMOL JOSEPH** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **BP** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2150 of 2013 () ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **----------------------** **ANNEXURE-A1: THE TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.472/2009 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION ANNEXURE-A2: THE TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.472/2009 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION ANNEXURE-A3: THE TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 28.1.2012 IN S.C.NO.289/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, KASARGOD ANNEXURE-A4: THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 26.4.2013 SWORN IN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ANNEXURE-A5: THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.4.2013 ISSUED BY THE SRI.A.V.RAGHAVAN, SECRETARY CPI(M) PADNA LOCAL COMMITTEE ANNEXURE-A6: THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO EVIDENCE IN CRIME NO.472/2009 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL. -----------------------** **//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE** ## **BP** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. ----------------------------------------** ## **Crl.M.C.No. 2150 of 2013** **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 12[th] day of June, 2013 ## **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 petitioner, who is an accused in Crime No. 472/2009 of Chandera Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 436 of I.P.C., with a prayer to quash Annexure A2 final report and all further proceedings pursuant to it in Crime No.472/2009 of Chandera police station, which is now pending as S.C.No.923/2012 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Adhoc-III) Kasaragod as against the petitioner, so as to secure the ends of justice as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that the allegations leveled against the accused in the above crime is that in between 10.30 p.m of 3/12/2009 and 9 a.m of 14/12/2009 some unknown persons have set fire to the local committee office of the CPIM at Padna and in the above incident the table, chair and electrical wirings were destroyed thereby causing a loss of about Rs.25,000/- thereby the accused committed the above offences. Now, the case of the **Crl.M.C.No. 2150 of 2013** 2 petitioner is that the matter is settled out of court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the second respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the above crime, the matter is settled amicably between the parties to the dispute which is the subject matter of the above crime. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above crime 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 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. 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 **Crl.M.C.No. 2150 of 2013** 3 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 Section 436 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 case, 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 criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the_ **Crl.M.C.No. 2150 of 2013** 4 _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_ **Crl.M.C.No. 2150 of 2013** 5 _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 full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim........”_ 8. 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 6 ## **Crl.M.C.No. 2150 of 2013** 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 allowed granting the relief as sought for. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing Annexure -2 and all further proceedings pending against the petitioner in Crime No. 472/2009 of Chandera Police Station and all further proceedings thereto. **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** AS