Ali and Fathah K v. Saibuneesa K, Ashraff Naja Manzil, and State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/14TH KARTHIKA, 1936** **Crl.MC.No. 6181 of 2014 () ---------------------------** ## **CRIME NO. 983/2014 OF MATTANNUR POLICE STATION , KANNUR** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 & 2:** **----------------------------** **1. ALI AGED 28 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMED, NADUVILAKKANDI HOUSE, CHAVASSERY MATTANNUR, P.R.NAGAR.P.O., PIN-670 702.** **2. FATHAH K AGED 27 YEARS CHIMMETTIYIL HOUSE, NADUVILAKKANDI HOUSE, CHAVASSERY MATTANNUR, P.R.NAGAR.P.O., PIN-670 702.** **BY ADVS.SRI.SALIM V.S. SRI.SHANAVAS.S** **RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANTS:** **---------------------------** **1. SAIBUNEESA K W/O.ASHRAFF, NAJA MANZIL, VELIYAMBRA NADUVILAKKANDI HOUSE, CHAVASSERY, MATTANNUR P.R.NAGAR.P.O., PIN-670 702.** **2. ASHRAFF NAJA MANZIL, VELIYAMBRA, NADUVILAKKANDI HOUSE CHAVASSERY, MATTANNUR, P.R.NAGAR.P.O. PIN-670 702.** **3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 031.** **R1,2 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JEEVESH BY ADV. SRI.H.NUJUMUDEEN R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.R.GITHESH** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-11-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.MC.No. 6181 of 2014 ()** **---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **------------------------** **ANNEXURE A1- TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO.983/14 OF MATTANNOOR POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE A2- AFFIDAVIT DULY SIGNED BY 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL** **------------------------** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A TO JUDGE** **vdv** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ========================= Crl.M.C No.6181 of 2014 ============================ Dated this the 05[th] day of November, 2014** ## **ORDER** The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively in Crime No.983 of 2014 of Mattannur Police Station, Kannur district for offences alleged under Sections 452, 323, 354, 427, 294(b) and 506(ii) r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The gist of the prosecution allegation is that on 12.10.2014 at 15:00 hrs, the petitioners herein had trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant (1[st] respondent herein), uttered abusive words at her and her husband (2[nd] respondent herein) and assaulted them. It is further alleged that the petitioners destroyed the window glasses of their house and caused loss of Rs.2,500/- to the 1[st] respondent/ de facto complainant. Annexure A1 is the copy of the impugned FIR in Crime No.983 of 2014 of Mattannur Police Station for the above said offences alleged against the petitioners. It is further stated that the petitioners and contesting respondents 1 and 2 have fully and amicably settled the disputes as evident from Annexure A2 affidavit filed on behalf of 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents. It is stated that Crl.M.C No.6181 of 2014 2 the petitioners and the contesting respondents 1 and 2 are relatives and they are now in good terms and the continuance of the impugned criminal proceedings would adversely affect their good relationship and that the petitioners in the above said circumstances seek to quash the impugned Annexure A1 FIR. The contesting respondents 1 and 2 have sworn to affidavits dated 16.10.2014 before this Court produced as Annexure A2 in this Crl.M.C stating that the impugned criminal proceedings arose out of misunderstandings and out of suspicious and that the injury suffered by them are due to fall and that they had given statements to the police in this crime due to misunderstandings and that they have no complaint and grievances against the petitioners and that accordingly the impugned criminal proceedings may be terminated or quashed, for which the petitioners are fully willing etc. It is in the light of these facts and circumstances that the above said Crl.M.C has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned Annexure A1 FIR in Crime No.983 of 2014 of Mattannur Police Station, Kannur district and all further proceedings arising therefrom in the interest of justice. Crl.M.C No.6181 of 2014 3 3. The Crl.M.C. has been admitted and Sri.P.V.Jeevesh has taken notice for the 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents and the learned Public Prosecutor has taken notice for the 3[rd] respondent-State of Kerala. 4. Heard Sri.V.S Salim, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.P.V.Jeevesh , learned counsel appearing for 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 3[rd] respondent-State of Kerala. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that during the pendency of the aforementioned impugned criminal proceedings, the matter has been settled amicably between the parties, which is resulted in the subject matter of the aforementioned crime/case and that the continuation of the proceedings in the above case/crime will cause miscarriage of justice to both parties as the real disputants to the case have arrived at an amicable settlement and any further continuation of the criminal proceedings will amount to sheer wastage of time and money and would unnecessarily strain the financial, administrative and financial resources of the State. 6. Sri.P.V.Jeevesh, the learned counsel appearing for the 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents, has submitted on the basis of the specific Crl.M.C No.6181 of 2014 4 instructions furnished by the 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents that they have amicably settled the disputes with the petitioners and that they have no objection in the quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings and that the complainant/victim/injured does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioners as they have no grievance against them and that they will not raise any dispute/compliant in future if the prayer for quashing the impugned final report is allowed. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor also was heard, who also has not raised any serious objections and submitted that this court may consider the prayer in this case in the light of the law well settled by the Apex Court in that regard. 8. After having carefully considered the submissions of the parties and after having perused the pleadings as well as the documents and materials placed in this matter, it can be seen that the offences alleged are more or less personal in nature and not much element of public interest is involved. The crucial aspect of the matter is that though such offences are involved, the real disputants to the controversy which has led to the impugned criminal proceedings, have actually arrived at an amicable settlement of the matter. From the submissions made Crl.M.C No.6181 of 2014 5 by the learned counsel for the 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents, it is clear to the court that the injured/victim/defacto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioners/accused in the light of the settlement arrived at by them. In this connection, it is relevant to note the decision of the Apex Court in the case between **Gian Singh** v. **State of Punjab** reported in 2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 160, para 61 = (2012) 10 SCC 303 = 2012(4) KLT 108 (SC), wherein the Supreme Court has held as follows in para 61 thereof [See SCC (Cri)]: “61. 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,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 Crl.M.C No.6181 of 2014 6 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........” In the decision reported in the case Yogendra Yadav & others v. The State of Jharkhand & another reported in 2014 (8) Scale 634 = III (2014) Current Criminal Reports CCR 426 (SC), the Apex Court has held as follows: “When the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and, therefore, do not affect public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them”. The Apex Court in the above case was dealing with a case involving offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 504 & 307 r/w Section 34 Indian Penal Code. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it is seen further that the impugned criminal proceedings have arisen consequent to the personal disputes between the disputants and the disputes have been settled amicably between the parties. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to hold that in the light of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case Crl.M.C No.6181 of 2014 7 and particularly in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the principles laid down in the aforementioned decisions of the Apex Court will be squarely applicable in the present case. Moreover, since the real disputants to the controversy have amicably settled the disputes, which led to these impugned criminal proceedings, it is also the duty of the court to promote such settlement, instead of compelling the parties to go on with the dispute. It is also pertinent to note that since the matter is settled out of court, in the event of proceeding with the trial, there may not be any fruitful prosecution and the chances of conviction of the accused is rather negligible and therefore, the net result of continuance of criminal proceedings would be sheer waste of judicial time rather meaningless and therefore would amount to abuse of the process of court proceedings in the larger sense. Hence following decisions of the Apex Court cited supra, this Court is inclined to hold that the Crl.M.C. can be allowed by granting the prayers sought for. In the result, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. In the interest of justice, it is ordered that the impugned Annexure 1 FIR in Crime No.983 of 2014 of Mattannur Police Station, Kannur, and all Crl.M.C No.6181 of 2014 8 further proceedings arising therefrom on the file of the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned stand quashed. The petitioners shall produce certified copies of this order before the court below concerned as well as before the Station House Officer, Mattannur Police Station, Kannur. Sd/- **ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE** vdv //True Copy// P.A to Judge