Abdullah P., Sabith P., Sabeer P. v. State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/19TH BHADRA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3903 of 2013 ()** **--------------------------CC.NO. 266/2012 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -I,HOSDURG CRIME NO. 64/2012 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION , KASARGOD** ## **------------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3:** **----------------------------------------------------------------** **1. ABDULLAH.P., S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGED 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT BILL TECH HOUSE, KARUVALAM, PADNAKKAD, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DIST.** **2. SABITH.P., S/O.JALEEL, AGED 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT POZHAKKARA HOUSE, PADNAKKAD, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DIST.** **3. SABEER.P., S/O.JALEELA,AGED 23 YEARS,** - **RESIDING AT POZHAKKARA HOUSE, PADNAKKAD, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DIST.** **BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH** ## **RESPONDENT/STATE & DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT:** **--------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, HOSDURG POLICE STATION, KANHANGAD, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **3. MUHAMMED NAJEEB.P.,AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL HAKKEEM, RESIDING AT THAZNIVILLA, THAIKADAPPURAM, NILESHWAR VILLAGE,** **KASARAGOD-671 314.** **4. P.C.SUDHEESH,AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.B.P. KRISHNAN, RESIDING AT P.C.HOUSE, PANAPUZHA VILLAGE, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 306.** **2/-** **sts** **-2-** ## **CRMC.NO.3903/2013** **5. P.P.MUHAMMED MUNEER,AGED 42 YEARS,** **S/O.E.K.MUSTHAFA HAJI, RESIDING AT PAZHAYAPATTILLATH,THAZNIVILLA, THAIKADAPPURAM, NILESHWAR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DIST-671 314.** **R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAJESH VIJAYAN BY ADV. SMT.MARY RANZOM LOUIZ** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-09-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3903 of 2013 () -------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES: -------------------------------------------ANNEX-A1: COPY OF THE FIR NO.64/2012 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION. ANNEX-A2: COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.64/12 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL IST CLASS MAGISTRATE, HOSDURG. ANNEX-A3: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. ANNEX-A4: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. ANNEX-A5: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL** ## **/TRUE COPY/** ## **P.A.TO.JUDGE** **sts** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. -----------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.3903 of 2013 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 10[th] day of September, 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 Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.266 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No.64 of 2012 of Hosdurg Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 341, 323, 294(b), 427 & 506(ii) read with Section 34 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash entire proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.266 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation against the petitioners/accused is that, they trespassed into the property belongs to the de facto complainant and assaulted the de facto complainant and thereby the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 294(b), 427 & 506(ii) read with Section 34 Crl.M.C.No.3903 of 2013 :-2-: of IPC. According to the petitioners, during the pendency of the above case, the entire matter is settled with the 3[rd] respondent, who is the de facto complainant as well as with the respondents 4 and 5, who are the injured. The 3[rd] respondent/de facto complainant has sworn into Annexure-A3 affidavit and similarly respondents 4 and 5, who are the injured respectively, have sworn into Annexures-A4 and A5 affidavits. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the 3[rd] 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 dispute is settled amicably between the parties 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 3[rd] respondent who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondent Crl.M.C.No.3903 of 2013 :-3-: 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 them. 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 including Annexures-A3, A4 & A5 affidavits. 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 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 447, 341, 323, 294 (b), 427 & 506(ii) read with Section 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 Crl.M.C.No.3903 of 2013 :-4-: made by the counsel for the respondents, it appears to me that the injured and the de facto complainant 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 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 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 Crl.M.C.No.3903 of 2013 :-5-: 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 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 Crl.M.C.No.3903 of 2013 :-6-: 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-A1 F.I.R., Annexure-A2 Final Report in Crime No.64 of 2012 of Hosdurg Police Station and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.266 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg. **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** skj