Chorathottathil Itammal Mahmood Haji v. U.P. Abdul Rahiman and State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** ## **WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JULY 2013/2ND SRAVANA, 193** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3086 of 2013 ()** **--------------------------CRIME NO. 291/2013 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT ------------------** ## **PETITIONERS :** **-----------------------** **1. CHORATHOTTATHIL ITTAMMAL MAHMOOD HAJI, AGED 61 YEARS S/O.BEEPATHU UMMA, KULATHINKARA VILLAGE KUNNUMKAL ROAD CHERUVATHOOR.P.O.-671313,** **KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **2. MANAKKAT THEKKEPEDIKAYIL AYISHATH, AGED 51 YEARS W/O.CHORATHOTTATHIL ITTAMMAL MAHMOOD HAJI KULANTHINKARA VILLAGE, KUNNUMKAI ROAD,** **CHERUVATHOOR.P.O -671313, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **3. K.K.KUMAR, AGED 48 YEARS S/O.T.A.KANNA PODUVAL, KALLIDIL HOUSE, MAHADEVAGRAMAM PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN** ## **RESPONDENTS :** **--------------------------** **1. U.P.C.ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGED 69 YEARS S/O. B.M.ABDULLA HAJI, RESIDING AT VALLATHIL HOUSE ALINAPPURAM, ACHANTHURUTHI P.O-671351, HOSDURG TALUK KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.R.SREEJITH R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAJESH VIJAYAN** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Mn** **...2/-** **Crl.MC.No. 3086 of 2013 () --------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES :** **------------------------------------------** **ANNEUXURE AI A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE IST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, HOSDURG. ANNEXURE-AII TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R.IN CRIME NO. 291 OF 2013 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE AIII TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PARTIES. ANNEXURE AIV TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE IST RESPONDENT ENDORSING THE FACTUM OF COMPOUNDING OF THE OFFENCE AND THE SETTLEMENT OF THE DISPUTES. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL ---------------------------------------------------------** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** ## **Mn** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **---------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.3086 of 2013** ## **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 24[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 Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No. 291 of 2013 of Chandera Police Station, Kasaragod district]for the offences punishable under Sections 415, 418, 468, 405 read with 34 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure-AII F.I.R in Crime No. 291 of 2013 of Chandera Police Station, Kasaragod district as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that accused numbers 1 to 3 who are the petitioners herein with an intention to grab the property, which is under the ownership of the de facto complainant and lying in R.S.No.458/1 of Cheruvathur village, created false document and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 415, 418, 468, 405 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Now according to the petitioners the matter is settled between themselves and the de facto complainant who is the first respondent herein as per Annexure-AIII agreement. Annexure-AIV is the affidavit sworn into by the de facto complainant. 2 **Crl.M.C.No.3086 of 2013** 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 crime, the matter is settled amicably between the parties to the dispute which is the subject matter of the above crime. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above crime 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 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. **Crl.M.C.No.3086 of 2013** 3 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 415, 418, 468, 405 r/w Section 34 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 first respondent, it appears to me thatthe 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 Gian Singh's 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_ 4 **Crl.M.C.No.3086 of 2013** _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 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 5 **Crl.M.C.No.3086 of 2013** 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 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 – AIII F.I.R in Crime No.291 of 2013 of Chandera Police Station and all further proceedings thereto. **V.K.MOHANAN Judge** mns/ **Crl.M.C.No.3086 of 2013** 6