Ameen M.N.P. and others v. Unais O.M and State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** ## **THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2013/10TH SRAVANA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3210 of 2013** ## **---------------------------** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC NO.83/2007 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, PAYYANNUR** **....** **(CRIME NO.431/2005 OF PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT)** **....** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO. 1 TO 9:** **----------------------------------------------------------------** **1. AMEEN M.N.P., AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. AMEER, MOUVALAPPIL NADUVILE PURAYIL HOUSE, VADAKKUMBAD, RAMANTHALI.P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.** **2. FARVAYEES.C.M., AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL SALAM, CHENOTH MADATHIL HOUSE, VADAKKUMBAD, RAMANTHALI.P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.** **3. KHALID.C.K., AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. IBRAHIM, CHEMMARAM KALLIL HOUSE, VADAKKUMBAD, RAMANTHALI.P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.** **4. SHABEER.P.K., AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. HAMEED, PONNICHI KOTTAYIL HOUSE, VADAKKUMBAD, RAMANTHALI.P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.** **5. USMAN.M.C., AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED KUNHI, MADAKKAN CHATTIKKAL HOUSE, VADAKKUMBAD, RAMANTHALI.P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.** **6. SHEREEF.M.C., AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED KUNHI, MADAKKAN CHATTIKKAL HOUSE, VADAKKUMBAD, RAMANTHALI.P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.** **7. SHANID, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL RAHMAN, CHAKRUNTAKATH HOUSE, VADAKKUMBAD, RAMANTHALI.P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.** **..2/-** **Kss** **..2....** ## **Crl.M.C.No.3210/2013** ## **8. NIYAS, AGED 29 YEARS,** **S/O. KASIM, CHENOTH PARAMMAL HOUSE, VADAKKUMBAD, RAMANTHALI.P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.** ## **9. RIYAS, AGED 31 YEARS,** **S/O.SALAM, CHENOTH MADATHIL HOUSE, VADAKKUMBAD, RAMANTHALI.P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL SRI.P.S.BINU** ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:** **-----------------------------------------------** ## **1. UNAIS O.M, AGED 26 YEARS,** - **S/O. KAREEM, ODATHUM MADATHIL HOUSE,** - **VADAKKUMBAD, RAMANTHALI.P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 002.** **2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.** **R1 BY ADV. SMT.P.A.ANEESHA R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S. HYMA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Kss** **Crl.MC.No. 3210 of 2013 ----------------------------------APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES: --------------------------------------------ANX.1 . CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME 431/2005 OF PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION. ANX.2. THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: ----------------------------------------------N I L** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **Kss** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. -----------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.3210 of 2013 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 01[st] day of August, 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 9 in S.C.No.83 of 2007 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Payyannur which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No.431 of 2005 of Payyannur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324 and 308 read with Section 149 of IPC. with a prayer to quash Annexure-I Final Report in Crime No.431 of 2005 of Payyannur Police Station and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in S.C.No.83 of 2007 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Payyannur as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation of the prosecution is that on 25/11/2005 at 21.00 hours accused Nos.1 to 9, activists of Muslim league unlawfully assembled at Ramanthali amsom Crl.M.C.No.3210 of 2013 :-2-: Vadakumbad and unlawfully restrained the de facto complainant with an intention of committing the crime and accused No.1 attacked him with a knife and other accused beaten him with wooden stick etc. due to political enmity and sustained injury and thereby committed the offences. Thus, according to the prosecution, the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324 and 308 read with Section 149 of IPC. Now the case of the petitioners is that the matter is settled with the de facto complainant, who is the first respondent herein, who sworn into Annexure-II affidavit. 3. 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, 148, 341, 324 and 308 read with Section 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 Crl.M.C.No.3210 of 2013 :-3-: 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 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.3210 of 2013 :-4-: 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.3210 of 2013 :-5-: 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-I Final Report in Crime No.431 of 2005 of Payyannur Police Station and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in S.C.No.83 of 2007 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Payyannur. ## **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** skj True copy P.A. to Judge