## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT:**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN**
## **THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2014/8TH JYAISHTA, 1936**
## **Crl.MC.No. 2108 of 2014**
**--------------------------SC NO. 1068/2012 OF III ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE CRIME NO.378/12 OF THAMARASSERY POLICE STATION**
**......**
## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:**
**--------------------------------------**
## **1. AZEEZ,AGED 40 YEARS,**
- **S/O.KOYA ASSAN, KAMMETTERYKUNNU POST, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.**
## **2. SAKKEER HUSSAIN,AGED 37 YERS,**
- **S/O. ALIKOYA, CHUNDAKUNNU, POST THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.**
## **3. SHAMEER,AGED 34 YEARS,**
- **S/O.MAYIN, CHUNDAKUNNU, POST THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.**
## **4. HAMEED,AGED 41 YEARS,**
- **S/O.HASSAN, POOVATHUMPOYIL THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.**
## **5. SHAMEER, AGED 40 YEARS,**
- **S/O.THARUVAYI, CHUNDAKUNNU, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.**
## **6. MUHAMMED,**
**S/O.KUNHAMU, AGED 40 YEARS, VELLAKAMPOYIL HOUSE, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.**
## **7. SHYJU NIZAR,**
- **S/O.KASIM, AGED 36 YEARS,KOTTAKUNNU HOUSE, CHUNGAM, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.**
## **BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN**
**..2/-**
**Kss**
**..2....**
## **Crl.M.C.No.2108/2014**
## **RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:**
**------------------------------------------------------------------**
## **1. STATE OF KERALA,**
- **REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.**
## **2. VINAY,**
**S/O.PHILOMIN ABRAHAM, AGED 36 YEARS, KAVIL AYIROOR ESTATE, PARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.**
**R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S.HYMA R2 BY ADV. SRI.B.HARISH KUMAR**
**THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-05-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
**Kss**
**Crl.MC.No. 2108 of 2014 ---------------------------------**
## **APPENDIX**
**PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES: --------------------------------------------**
**ANNEXURE 1. COPY OF THE CHARGE SUBMITTED BY THE POLICE IN SC NO. 347/12 OF THE COURT OF THIRD SESSIONS JUDGE (WAKF TRIBUNAL) KOZHIKODE.**
**ANNEXURE 2. AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.**
**RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: ----------------------------------------------N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE**
**Kss**
## **K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.**
................................................. Crl.M.C.No.2108 of 2014 .................................................. Dated this the 29[th] day of May, 2014.
## **O R D E R**
This Criminal Miscellaneous case is filed by all the accused in SC.No.1068/2012 pending before the third Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Kozhikode to quash the proceedings on the basis of a settlement under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioners and the second respondent/defacto complainant are neighbours. There were property dispute between them. On account of the property dispute, some incident had happened on the fateful day and the defacto complainant sustained some injury and on the basis of the statement given by the defacto complaint, Annexure-1 First Information Report was registered as Crime No.378/2012 of Thamarasery police station originally for commission of offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 323, 324, 427 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. Later, after investigation Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code was also added and final report was filed and it was committed to the
Crl.M.C.No.2108 of 2014
2
Sessions Court and it was taken on file as S.C.No.1068/2012 and was made over to the third Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Kozhikode for disposal and that is pending before that court.
3. The matter has been now settled between the parties. In view of the settlement, there is no possibility of any conviction since some of the offences alleged are non compoundable in nature and they cannot compound the mater before the court below. So they have no other remedy except to approach this Court seeking the following relief:
Call for the records pertaining to Annexure A1 (SC.1068/12 before the 3[rd] Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Kozhikode) and quash all further proceedings pursuant thereto.
4. The second respondent appeared through counsel and submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties and the incident occurred due to some property dispute which was later settled due to intervention of mediators and their relationship has been restored now. He does not want to prosecute the petitioners any longer.
5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of
Crl.M.C.No.2108 of 2014 3
the settlement, there is no possibility of conviction. So he prayed for allowing the application.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, as directed by this Court submitted that there is no other case against the petitioners, but opposed the application on the ground that grave offences have been incorporated.
7. It is an admitted fact that on the basis of the statement given by the second respondent as defacto complaint Annexure-1 First Information Report was registered against the petitioners originally alleging commission of offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 323, 324, 427 and 149 of the Indian penal Code. Later, Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code was also added and final report was filed and now the case is pending before the Third Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Kozhikdoe as S.C.No.1068/2012. Now the matter has been settled between the parties. The second respondent, the injured/defacto complainant has filed Annexure 2 affidavit where he had stated that there was some dispute regarding the property between the petitioners and the second respondent and that has been settled due to intervention of mediators and well wishers of both the parties. Now the relationship between the petitioners
Crl.M.C.No.2108 of 2014
4
and the second respondent has been restored. Further, it is seen from the affidavit that Section 308 has been incorporated later. I am at this stage going into the question as to whether the offence under Section 308 is attracted or not in view of the fact that the mater has been settled between the parties. Since the mater has been settled, there is no possibility of conviction as parties will not support the case of the prosecution and allowing the case to continue only amount to wastage of judicial time.
## 8. Further in the decision reported in **Gian Singh v. State**
**of Punjab** (2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
“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 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
5
Crl.M.C.No.2108 of 2014
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 other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of the criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”
9. In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision and also considering the fact that the property dispute between the parties has resulted in the incident and registration of the crime which has been settled due to intervention of mediators and no purpose will be served by allowing the case to continue as conviction will be remote in such case, this Court feels
6
Crl.M.C.No.2108 of 2014
that this is a fit case to invoke the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be invoked to quash the proceedings for promoting settlement and harmony that has been restored between the parties on account of the settlement.
10. So, the application is allowed and further proceedings in S.C.No.1068/12 (Crime No.378/2012 of Thamarassery police station) pending before the Third Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Kozhikode is hereby quashed.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately.
**Sd/-**
## **K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.**
cl
/true copy/
P.S to Judge
Crl.M.C.No.2108 of 2014 7
