Anwar Sadath & Others v. Sreedevi M and State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** ## **MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/5TH KARTHIKA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2548 of 2014** ## **----------------------------------** **CC 462/2011 of CHIEFJ JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KASARAGOD CRIME NO. 156/2011 OF VIDYA NAGAR POLICE STATION , KASARGOD** **-----------------** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :** - **---------------------------------------** **1. ANWAR SADATH, AGED 36 YEARS S/O. LATE MOIDEEN KUTTY RESIDING AT KOLIYADKAM HOUSE, PERUMBALA VILLAGE KASARAGOD TALUK.** **2. IBRAHIM KHALEEL @ KHALEEL, AGED 23 YEARS S/O. ABDULKADAR, RESIDING AT KOLIYADKAM HOUSE PERUMBALA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK.** **3. FIROZ A.M. AGED 24 YEARS S/O. ABBAS, ALLAMKALAM HOUSE, KOLIYADKAM HOUSE PERUMBALA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK.** **4. MUHAMMED RASHID @ RASHID, AGED 23 YEARS S/O. N.M.ABDULLA, KOLIYADKAM HOUSE, PERUMBALA VILLAGE KASARAGOD TALUK.** **5. NAVAS P.S., AGED 23 YEARS S/O. SAYED, T.A.HOUSE, KOLIYADKAM HOUSE PERUMBALA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK.** **6. AHAMED KABEER N.A., AGED 26 YEARS S/O. N.A.ABDULKHADER, VAYALAMKUZHY HOUSE PERUMBALA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK.** **7. ALTHAF MADATHIL, AGED 25 YEARS S/O. ABDULLA KUNHI MADATHIL, FERZANA MANZ PERUMBALA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK.** **8. T.M.RAISE, AGED 22 YEARS S/O. MOIDU, RIYAZ MANZIL, KOLIYADKAM PERUMBALA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK.** **BY ADV. SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON** **PJ** **...2/-** **..2..** **Crl.MC.No. 2548 of 2014** **----------------------------------** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE :** **----------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. SREEDEVI.M, AGED 42 YEARS** - **W/O. NARAYANAN, ALLAMKULAM, MAVUNGAL PERUMBALA, KASARAGOD.** **2. STATE OF KERALA** - **REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **R1 BY SRI.SIJU MATHEW R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-10-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **PJ** **Crl.MC.No. 2548 of 2014** **---------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE A1 : COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.156/11 OF VIDHYANAGAR POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE A2 : COPY OF THE WITNESS LIST.** **ANNEXURE A3 : COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **---------------------------------------** **NIL.** **/ TRUE COPY /** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **PJ** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ----------------------------Crl.M.C.No.2548 Of 2014 --------------------------------Dated this the 27[th] day of October, 2014.** ## **O R D E R** The eight petitioners herein are the accused in Crime No.156/2011 of Vidyanagar Police Station, Kasaragod District. The police after investigation has submitted impugned Annexure-A1 Final Report/Charge Sheet in impugned Crime No.156/2011 of Vidyanagar Police Station, Kasaragod District, which has led to the institution of C.C.No.462/2011 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasaragod. The offences alleged are those under Secs.143, 147, 148, 448, 341, 323 r/w 149 IPC. The gist of the prosecution allegation is that on 17.3.2011 at about 21:15 hours, the petitioners unlawfully assembled with deadly weapons and trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and assaulted her etc. It is stated that now the entire disputes between the petitioners/accused and the defacto complainant have been settled amicably. The defacto complainant (1[st] respondent) has filed an affidavit dated 5.5.2014, which has been produced in this Crl.M.C stating the above aspects wherein it is specifically stated that she is not interested to continue the impugned criminal ::2:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.2548 Of 2014** proceedings and that she has no objection in the quashment of the impugned Annexure-A1 Final Report/Charge Sheet in the impugned Crime No.156/2011 of Vidyanagar Police Station, Kasaragod District, which has led to the institution of C.C.No.462/2011 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasaragod etc. It is in the background of these facts and circumstances, the instant Crl.M.C has been filed seeking the prayer to quash the impugned Annexure-A1 Final Report/Charge Sheet in the impugned Crime No.156/2011 of Vidhyanagar Police Station, which has led to the institution of C.C.No.462/2011 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasaragod and all further proceedings arising therefrom. 2. The Crl.M.C has been admitted and Sri.Siju Mathew, Advocate, has taken notice for the 1[st] respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor has taken notice for the 2[nd] respondent-State of Kerala. 3. Heard Sri.T.B.Shajimon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.Siju Mathew, learned counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 2[nd] respondent. ::3:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.2548 Of 2014** 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that during the pendency of the aforementioned criminal proceedings, the matter has been settled amicably between the parties, 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 controversy 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 judicial, administrative and financial resources of the State. 5. Sri.Siju Mathew, learned counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent has submitted on the basis of the specific instructions furnished by the 1[st] respondent that the 1[st] respondent has amicably settled the disputes with the petitioners and that she has 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 she has no grievance against them and that they will not raise any dispute/complaint in future if the prayer for quashing the impugned final report is allowed. ::4:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.2548 Of 2014** 6. The learned Public Prosecutor also was heard 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. 7. 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. 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 by the learned counsel for the 1[st] respondent, 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. 8. 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_ ::5:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.2548 Of 2014** _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 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”._ ::6:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.2548 Of 2014** 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. This Court vide order dated 17.10.2014 in this Crl.M.C had passed the following order: _“The Station House Officer of the Vidyanagar Police Station, Kasaragode shall file a statement as to whether there has been any complaints against the petitioners from the 1[st] respondent, after the occurrence of the incident which is said to have happened on 17.3.2011, mentioned in Annexure-A1 Final Report and whether the petitioners are creating any problems for the peaceful life of the 1[st] respondent.”_ In obedience to the direction as per order dated 17.10.2014 passed by this Court, the investigating officer in the above said Crime No.156/2011 of Vidyanagar Police Station has filed a statement dated 23.10.2014. Paragraphs 3 & 4 of the statement reads as follows: _“3. It is submitted that accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 5 and 8 were also the accused in Cr.No.155/2011 under Secs.143, 147, 148, 153, 447, 427 r/w 149 and A1, 2, 4, 8 were accused in Crime No.157/2011 under Secs.143, 147, 148, 341, 324 r/w 149 IPC of Vidyanagar Police Station. Both the cases were political and all the accused in Crime No.155/2011 were acquitted under Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C on 27.8.2013. In Crime No.157/2011, A1, A4 and A8 were acquitted under Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C on 18.1.2014. The case against A2 was split up as C.C.No.8/2014._ _4. It is humbly submitted that no petition or complaint has been received to this office against the petitioners from the 1[st] respondent after the occurrence of the incident dated 17.3.2011 and petitioners are not creating any problems to the peaceful life of the 1[st] respondent.”_ ::7:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.2548 Of 2014** 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 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, ::8:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.2548 Of 2014** this Court is inclined to hold that the Crl.M.C. can be allowed by granting the prayers sought for. In the result, Crl.M.C is allowed and the impugned Annnexure-A1 Final Report/Charge Sheet in impugned Crime No.156/2011 of Vidyanagar Police Station, Kasaragod District, which has led to the institution of C.C.No.462/2011 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasaragod and all further proceedings arising therefrom against all the accused stand quashed. The petitioners shall forward certified copies of this order to the Station House Officer concerned as well as to the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned. **ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.** bkn/-