B. Mohammed Ashkar and Others v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2013/25TH ASHADHA, 1935** **Crl.MC.No. 2912 of 2013 ()** **---------------------------** - **(C.C.NO.1125/2011 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, HOSDURG)** **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS:1,2,3 AND 4:** - **-----------------------------------** **1. B.MOHAMMED ASHKAR, AGED 22 YEARS S/O.B.MOHAMMED, RESIDING AT PRASANTHI ROAD, PADANAKKAD KANHANGAD VILLAGE.** **2. SHAMEEMUDHEEN.C.H, AGED 23 YEARS S/O.IBRAHIM, RESIDING AT T.C.MANZIL, PADANAKKAD KANHANGAD VILLAGE.** **3. MUNEER.K.M, AGED 21 YEARS** - **S/O.MAJEED.K.M, RESIDING AT KARAKUNDU HOUSE PRASANTHI ROAD, PADANNAKKAD, KANHANGAD VILLAGE.** **4. RIYAS, AGED 21 YEARS S/O ABDUL SALAM, RESIDING AT MANGYAN HOUSE, BANK ROAD KANHANGAD VILLAGE.** **BY ADVS.SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS** - **SMT.P.K.PRIYA SRI.K.V.SREE VINAYAKAN** **SRI.K.M.MUHAMMED HUSSAIN** **COMPLAINANTS/STATE:** - **-------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT FO KERALA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING STATION HOUSE OFFICER HOSDURG POLICE STATION.** **2. P.SURESH,, AGED 39 YEARS S/O.KRISHNA CHETTIAR, MAVINKATTA, KUMBALA** **KOYIPPADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-676321.** **3. VIJESH.P,, AGED 29 YEARS S/O.K.V.KRISHNAN, RESIDING AT THIRUVONAL HOUSE** **AYINGOTH, PADANNAKKAD, KANHANGAD VILLAGE HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-676321.** **4. BIJU.A.M,, AGED 33 YEARS S/O MATHEW, RESIDING AT THERTHALLI HOUSE THERTHALLI.P.O, ALAKKODE VILLAGE, KANNUR TALUK KANNUR DISTRICT-676321.** **R2-4 BY ADV. SRI.A.L.GEORGE R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.MC.No. 2912 of 2013 () ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:** ## **-----------------------** **ANNEXURE-A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.818/2011 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION** **A2 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.818/2011 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION** **A3 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 1- 7-2013** **A4 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 1-72013** **A5 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 1-72013** **A6 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 01.07.2013** **A7 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 01.07.2013** **A8 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 01.07.2013.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:NIL** **---------------------------** **TRUE COPY** **PA TO JUDGE** **SCL.** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. -------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.2912 of 2013 --------------------------------------Dated this the 16[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, 2, 3 & 4 in C.C.No.1125 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No.818 of 2011 of Hosdurg Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324 & 506(i) read with Section 149 of IPC. with a prayer to quash all proceedings in C.C.No.1125 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The prosecution allegation is that, on 02/08/2011 at 4.15 p.m. by blocking the bus in which the injured are working, the accused/petitioners assaulted them with weapons and threatened to kill the driver. Thus, as per the allegation, the accused have committed the offences punishable under ## Crl.M.C.No.2912 of 2013 :-2-: Sections 143, 147, 148, 324 & 506(i) read with Section 149 of IPC. Now, the case of the petitioners, who are accused Nos.1, 2, 3 & 4 is that, the matter is settled between the petitioners and the de facto complainant and the injured. Annexure-A3 consent letter executed by the de facto complainant, who is the second respondent and similarly the other injured, who are respondents 3 and 4 executed Annexures-A4 and A5 consent letters. The de facto complainant/the second respondent as well as the injured, who are respondents 3 and 4, have sworn into by affidavits, which are produced along with this Crl.M.C. as Annexures-A6 to A8. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as respondents 2, 3 & 4. 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 matter of the above case. Therefore, the continuation of the Crl.M.C.No.2912 of 2013 :-3-: proceedings in the above case is abuse of process of law and proceedings. 5. The learned counsel for respondents who on the basis of specific instruction received from the 2[nd] respondent submitted that the above respondent, who is the de facto complainant does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioners and they have 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 Annexures-A6 to A8 affidavits. 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, 324 & Crl.M.C.No.2912 of 2013 :-4-: 506(i) read with Section 149 of IPC. 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 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 Crl.M.C.No.2912 of 2013 :-5-: 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 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. ## Crl.M.C.No.2912 of 2013 :-6-: According to me, 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, 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 all proceedings pending against the petitioners alone, in C.C.No.1125 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg. ## **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** skj True copy P.A. to Judge