Abu and others v. Ismail and others; State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/20TH SRAVANA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 4503 of 2014 ()** **--------------------------CC.NO.756/2009 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT- I,NORTH PARAVUR CRIME NO. 198/2009 OF BINANIPURAM POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM DISTRICT** **---------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :** **-----------------------------------------** **1. ABU,AGED 31 YEARS,S/O.K.P.MOHAMMED, KUDILINGAL HOUSE, IYROORPADAM P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM.** **2. NISHAD P.M,AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.P.P.MEERAN, PANAYICHALIL HOUSE, MANARY P.O., PAYIPRA, MUVATTUPUZHA.** **3. SHIHAB N.E,AGED 31 YEARS,S/O.IBRAHIMKUTTY, NEDUNGATTUKUDIYIL HOUSE, OKKAL P.O., PERUMBAVOOR.** **4. ANTONY @ JOHNY, S/O.SAJU, MATTAKKAL VEEDU, EDAYAR, KADUNGALLOOR P.O.** **5. MUJEEB RAHMAN C.P, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.IBRAHIM PAREED, CHULLIKKATT HOUSE,** **IYROORPADAM P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:** **-------------------------------------------------** **1. ISMAIL,AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.SYED ALI, OLIPPARAMBIL HOUSE, ERAMAM KARA, MUPPATHADAM P.O, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- 683 110.** **2. ANAS, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.PAREED, KUMBASSERIL HOUSE, AYROORPADAM, THRIKKARIYOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. PIN -686 692.** **3. TASNI ANAS @ TASNI, AGED 26 YEARS, W/O.ANAS, KUMBASSERIL HOUSE, AYROORPADAM, THRIKKARIYOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. PIN- 686 692.** **2/-** **sts** **-2-** **CRMC.NO.4503/2014** **4. SUBAIDA,W/O.ISMAIL,AGED 49 YEARS, OOLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, ERAMAN, MUPPATHADAM, KADUNGALLUR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. PIN -683 110.** ## **5. STATE OF KERALA,** - **REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI. MANOJ VASU R5 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. BINDU GOPINATH** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** ## **Crl.MC.No. 4503 of 2014 () -------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:** **---------------------------------------------** **ANNEX A1. COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC.NO.756/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-1, NORTH PARAVUR DATED 25.11.2011. ANNEX A2. COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE IST RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT DATED 05.08.14. ANNEX A3. COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED 05.08.14. ANNEX A4. COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 05.08.14. ANNEX A5. COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 05.08.14.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL** ## **/TRUE COPY/** ## **P.A.TO.JUDGE** **sts** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.4503 of 2014** **------------------------------Dated this the 11[th] day of August, 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 accused in C.C.No. 756/2009 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I, North Paravur for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 452, 423, 323 and 506(ii) r/w Section 149 of the I.P.C. with a prayer to quash all further proceedings in C.C No.756/2009 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I, North Paravur as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that on 20.11.2009 at about 5 p.m the petitioners had trespassed into the house of the 1[st] respondent demanding amount lost to them in rent a car business and manhandled the 1[st] respondent/de facto complainant and respondents 2 to 4, who are his wife, son-in-law and daughter and thus, they have committed the aforesaid offences and now, the case of the petitioners **Crl.M.C.No.4503 of 2014** 2 is that the matter is settled out of court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the 1[st] 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 1[st] 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 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. 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 **Crl.M.C.No.4503 of 2014** 3 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 143, 147, 452, 423, 323 and 506(ii) r/w 149 of IPC, 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 1[st] 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 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_ **Crl.M.C.No.4503 of 2014** 4 _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,mercantile, 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. 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 **Crl.M.C.No.4503 of 2014** 5 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 all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No. 756/2009 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I, North Paravur. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** vdv //True Copy// P.A to Judge