Azlan C., Nishad A.G., Sufaid O.T., Fahad A.P. and Sufaid A.P. v. The State of Kerala (through the Public Prosecutor) and Sanoj K.

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2013/13TH ASHADHA, 1935** **Crl.MC.No. 2712 of 2013 () ---------------------------** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN CP 30/2013 of J.M.F.C.-I,HOSDRUG CRIME NO. 238/2012 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION , KASARGOD ------------** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 5: ---------------------------** **1. AZLAN.C., AGED 19 YEARS, S/O.MUSTAFA, RESIDING AT SUHARA MANZIL, VELLAPPU ROAD VADAKKE THRIKARIPPUR, HOSDURG TALUK KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** ## **2. NISHAD.A.G., AGED 21 YEARS** - **S/O.P.NOUSHAD, RESIDINGF AT VAKKEEL QUARTERS BEERICHERY, VADAKKE THRIKARIPPUR, HOSDURG TALUK KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** ## **3. SUFAID.O.T., AGED 20 YEARS** - **S/O.O.T.LATHEEF, RESIDING AT SOUDHA MANZIL** - **NIKKAKUTHIR, TRIKARIPPUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** ## **4. FAHAD.A.P., AGED 19 YEARS** - **S/O.RAHMAN, RESIDING AT KOCHANS, NEELAMBAM VADAKKE THRIKARIPPUR, HOSDURG TALUK KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** ## **5. SUFAID.A.P., AGED 19 YEARS** - **S/O.C.N.SULAIMAN, RESIDING AT HARIS MANZIL, NEELAMBAM THRIKARIPPUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU** **RESPONDENT/STATE:** **----------------** **1. THE STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER CHANDERA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **2. SANOJ.K., AGED 26 YEARS** - **S/O.GOPALAN.P.V., RESIDING AT NEELAMBAM** - **P.O.TRIKARIPUR, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTORSMT.S.HYMA R2 BY ADV. SMT.T.SUDHAMANI** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **VK** **Crl.MC.No. 2712 of 2013 ()** **---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **--------** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-----------------------** **ANNEXURE-A1: TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.238/2012 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE-A2: TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.238/2012 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE-A3: THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 3.6.2013 SWORN IN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL** **-----------------------** **/ TRUE COPY /** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **VK** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. -----------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.2712 of 2013 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 04[th] day of July, 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 5 in C.P.No.30 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No.238 of 2012 of Chandera Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 & 308 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure-A2 Final Report in Crime No.238 of 2012 of Chandera Police Station and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.P.No.30 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation against the accused is that, on 14/04/2012 at 8 p.m. the accused 5 in numbers and 5 other Crl.M.C.No.2712 of 2013 :-2-: identifiable persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly at Vellappu in Trikaripur Village, wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and assaulted him with an iron rod striking over his left eye. According to the prosecution, if the de facto complainant has not been timely evaded, the blow would have caused his death and thus the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 & 308 read with Section 149 of IPC. Now the case of the petitioner is that, the dispute between themselves and the second respondent, who is the de facto complainant, is settled out of court as they are neighbours. The second respondent herein appeared through the counsel and he had also sworn into Annexure-A3 affidavit. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the 2[nd] 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 dispute is settled amicably between the parties which is the subject Crl.M.C.No.2712 of 2013 :-3-: 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 2[nd] respondent who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondent submitted that the above respondent, who is the de facto complainant/victim/injured 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 including Annexure-A3 affidavit. 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 under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, Crl.M.C.No.2712 of 2013 :-4-: 323, 324 & 308 read with 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 2[nd] respondent, it appears to me that the injured/the victim/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 Crl.M.C.No.2712 of 2013 :-5-: 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 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 Crl.M.C.No.2712 of 2013 :-6-: 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-A2 Final Report in Crime No.238 of 2012 of Chandera Police Station and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.P.No.30 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg. ## **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** skj True copy P.A. to Judge