Ashraf V.K. v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/5TH ASHADHA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2599 of 2013 ()** **--------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN LPC 43/2002 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, KANNUR. CRIME NO. 143/1998 OF KANNUR CITY POLICE STATION , KANNUR** ## **PETITIONER(S)/8TH ACCUSED:** **----------------------------------------------** **ASHRAF V.K., AGED 48 YEARS, S/O/.NABEESA, VATTAKANDI HOUSE, NEAR ARATTOKA PALLI, KANNUR CITY, KANNUR.** **BY ADVS.SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH** **SMT.R.LEELA** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** **---------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM -682 031.** **2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KANNUR CITY POLICE STATION, KANNUR-670 001.** **3. KOLILAKATH HASHIM ALI, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED ALI, COCHU PALLI, KANNUR AMSOM, KANNUR-670 010.** **4. KOLILAKATH SOUJITH, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.SALAM, COCHU PALLI, KANNUR AMSOM, KANNUR-670 010.** - **R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI N SURESH R4 BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.MC.No. 2599 of 2013 () ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURE -------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE-A1. CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN FIR NO.143/1998 OF KANNUR CITY POLICE STATION, DATED 30/11/1998. ANNEXURE-A2. THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE 3RD AND THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURE: NIL --------------------------------------** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A TO JUDGE** **LSN** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** **---------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No. 2599 of 2013 ----------------------------------------** Dated this the 26[th] day of June, 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 petitioner, who is the 8[th] accused in Crime No.143 of 1998 of Kannur City Police. The court took cognizance of the crime and numbered as C.C.No.126 of 1999. The petitioner is charged under Sections 143,147,148,452,323,324,506(II) read with Section 149 of the I.P.C Accused Nos.1 to 7 were acquitted in C.C.No.126 of 1999 on 23.8.2001. The case against the petitioner was split up as C.C.No.502/2001 and later numbered as LPC 43/2002. This Crl.M.C. is preferred with a prayer to quash Annexure A-1 final report as Cr.No.143/1998 of Kannur City Police dated 30.11.1998 and all further proceedings in LPC 43/2002 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II,Kannur, as the matter is settled out of court. Crl.M.C.No.2599 of 2013 **==> picture [21 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** 2. The allegation in the above case is that at about 12.30 p.m. on 30.11.1998, the accused trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and assaulted with stick and thereby, caused injuries to them. Now, the case of the petitioner is that the matter is settled out of court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the third respondent/the de facto complainant and the fourth respondent/injured. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner 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 third respondent/the de facto complainant and the fourth respondent/injured, who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondent submitted that the Crl.M.C.No.2599 of 2013 :-3-: above respondents, who are the de facto complainant and the injured do not intend to proceed any further against the petitioner and they have no grievance against him. 6. I have carefully considered the above submissions of the respective counsel. Annexure A2 is the joint affidavit filed by respondents 3 and 4 and 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 143,147,148,452,323,324,506(II) read with Section 149 of the 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 Crl.M.C.No.2599 of 2013 :-4-: having amicably settled the matter. From the submission made by the counsel for the third and fourth respondents, it appears to me that the de facto complainant and the injured have no further grievance against the petitioner/accused in the light of the settlement arrived by them. In this juncture, it is relevant to note the decision of the Honourable v. Apex Court reported in **Gian Singh 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_ Crl.M.C.No.2599 of 2013 :-5-: _category can be prescribed.._ ## It is further held as follows:- “...... _... But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly 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 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 Crl.M.C.No.2599 of 2013 :-6-: 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, 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 – A1 final report in Cri me No.143/1998 of Kannur City Police dated 30.11.998 and all further proceedings in LPC 43 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kannur. ## **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** MBS/ Crl.M.C.No.2599 of 2013 :-7-: