Asad Sachin and others v. Riswana Thasneem and State of Kerala

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2013/20TH ASHADHA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2849 of 2013** **-----------------------------------** **CC 518/2013 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I,MANJERI CRIME NO. 1356/2012 OF MANJERI POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM** **--------------** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:** **--------------------------------------** ## **1. ASAD SACHIN,** - **S/O SACHIDANANDAN, KOUSTHUBAM, IRIVETTY P.O, EDAYOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** ## **2. DILNAVAS,** - **S/O SHOUKATHALI, KOZHISSERIL, KOZHISSERI HOUSE, CHERANI, KARUVAMBRUM P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** ## **3. NAVANEETH .P,** - **S/O KESAVANANDAN, UDAYAM PUNNAPPALA P.O, WANDOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** ## **4. MUHAMMED RAFI,** **S/O ABDUL RAHIMAN, MUSLIYARAKATH HOUSE, THAZHATHANGADI AREACODE P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** ## **5. RAJEESH,** **S/O MOHANAN, CHAITHANUYA, AMBALAPPADI, WANDOOR P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.VENUGOPAL** ## **RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO- COMPLAINANT & STATE:** **--------------------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. RISWANA THASNEEM,** - **D/O MUHAMMED BASHEER, PUNNAKODAN HOUSE, KOZHICHENA EDARIKKODE, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676501.** ## **2. STATE OF KERALA,** **REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MANJERI)** **R1 BY ADV. SMT.T.J.MARIA GORETTI R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **PJ** **Crl.MC.No. 2849 of 2013 ---------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO 1356/2012 OF MANJERI POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE MANJERI POLICE IN CRIME NO 1356/2012.** **ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT.** **ANNEXURE D AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE DEFACT0- COMPLAINANT/FIRST RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **---------------------------------------** **NIL.** **/ TRUE COPY /** ## **P.S. TO JUDGE** **PJ** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** **---------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No. 2849 of 2013 ----------------------------------------** Dated this the 11[th] day of July, 2013 ## **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.518/2013 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Majeri which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No.1356/2012 of Manjeri Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 286 r/w Section 149 of I.P.C., with a prayer to quash Annexure B Final report in Crime No.1356/2012 of Manjeri Police Station, Malappuram district and proceedings pursuant to the same, now pending as C.C.No.518/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Manjeri as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that petitioners and the defacto-complainant are students of NSS College, Manjeri. While the students belonging to SFI were conducting a procession in the college in connection with their victory in the College Union Election, defacto-complainant and **Crl.M.C.No. 2849 of 2013** 2 her friends were standing near the gate on the southern side of the college and when the procession reached near the defacto-complainant and the other students, someone from the procession has lighted a firecracker and thrown it rashly and negligently towards the students, resulting in falling of a fire particle near the right eye of the defacto-complainant, causing injury to her. Now, the case of the petitioners is that being the students matter is settled out of court. First respondent, defacto complainant is sworn into Annexure-D affidavit. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the first 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 first respondent who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondent **Crl.M.C.No. 2849 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. 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 Sections 143, 147, 286 r/w Section 149 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 made by the counsel for the first respondent, it appears to me that the 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 **Crl.M.C.No. 2849 of 2013** 4 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 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,mercandile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc. or the family_ **Crl.M.C.No. 2849 of 2013** 5 _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 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, 6 ## **Crl.M.C.No. 2849 of 2013** 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-B and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.518/2013 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Manjeri and all further proceedings thereto. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** AS