Crl.M.C. No. 2028 of 2013

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: V.K. Mohanan
Judgment Date: 2013-06-24
Court Decision / Holding: Crl.M.C. allowed; quashing of Annexure 1 FIR and Annexure 2 Final Report in Crime No.606/2009 and all further proceedings in respect of the petitioners, including S.C. No.183/2011 before the Assistant Sessions Court, Kottarakkara.
Final Disposition: The Crl.M.C. is allowed; Annexures 1 and 2 and all further proceedings in Crime No.606/2009 and S.C. No.183/2011 against the petitioners are quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Shan s/o Shahu Deen
Shaji s/o Sainulabdeen
Prasanth s/o Prasad

Respondents

State of Kerala
Firoz Khan

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri K. Siju
• Chithra S. Babu

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. S. Hyma
• Sri S. Abhilash
• Sri A. Muhammed Raffi

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case under section 482 Cr.P.C. concerns accused nos. 1 to 5 in Crime No. 606/2009 of Chadayamangalam Police Station, with a prayer to quash the FIR (Annexure 1) and the final report (Annexure 2) and all further proceedings, including S.C. No. 183/2011 before the Assistant Sessions Court, Kottarakara, on the basis that the matter has been settled amicably out of court. The allegations relate to a 1/9/2009 incident at Madanada junction where an unlawful assembly caused injuries: the 1st accused allegedly inflicted a knife wound, the 2nd accused assaulted with a plier, and the 5th with a brick, resulting in injuries described as abrasion. The offences cited span IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 308 r/w 149. The defense contends that the settlement renders continued proceedings abuse of process and a waste of judicial time, while the de facto complainant expresses no grievance. The Public Prosecutor has no objection in the light of settlement. Citing Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (SC), the court reiterates that the High Court’s inherent power to quash is wide and should secure ends of justice and prevent abuse where the parties have settled, especially in personal offences. Consequently, the petition is allowed and Annexures 1 and 2, along with all further proceedings, are quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 Cr.P.C.Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 308 r/w 149 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Inherent power of High Court to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Ends of justice as a guiding principle for quashing
Prevention of abuse of the process of the court as a standard for quashing

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners’ counsel contended that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled during the pendency of the case. Continuing with the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law and would waste judicial time. The offences, being personal in nature and with no public interest involved, and the de facto complainant having no grievance, justify exercise of the High Court’s inherent power to quash the FIR and final report. They relied on the Supreme Court’s Gian Singh decision to support quashing in cases of amicable settlements and emphasized the need to promote settlements rather than protract litigation.

Contentions of Respondents

The State’s counsel urged careful scrutiny of whether quashing is appropriate in view of the public interest, but acknowledged that the de facto complainant does not wish to proceed and that the Public Prosecutor has no objection to quashing in light of the amicable settlement. The respondents’ representation stressed considering ends of justice while acknowledging the private, personal nature of the offences and absence of a grievance by the complainant.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012(4) KLT 108(SC)	Positive	The Supreme Court decision is cited to justify the broad inherent power to quash criminal proceedings in light of a settlement and to highlight ends of justice and avoidance of abuse of process.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/3RD ASHADHA, 1935** **Crl.MC.No. 2028 of 2013 ()** **---------------------------** **SC. NO.183/2011 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, KOTTARAKKARA. CRIME NO. 606/2009 OF CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM.** **...........** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1, 2 AND 5:-** **-------------------------------------------------------------** **1. SHAN, S/O.SHAHUDEEN, AGED 25 YEARS, THANNIMOOTTIL MELATHIL HOUSE, KONDOTTUKONAM, ELAMPAZHANNUR MURI, KADAKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **2. SHAJI, S/O.SAINULABDEEN, AGED 27 YEARS, SHEEJA MANZIL, MANNAMPARAMBU MURI, CHADAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **3. PRASANTH, S/O.PRASAD, AGED 21 YEARS, PUTHUVILA VEEDU, AKONAM MURI, CHADAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.K.SIJU, SMT.CHITHRA.S.BABU.** ## **RESPONDENTS/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT AND STATE:-** **-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA,** - **REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, 682 031.** **2. FIROZ KHAN, S/O.ABDUL VAHID,** - **AGED 27 YEARS, FIROZ BHAVAN, NEAR MADANNADA JUNCTION, MADANNADA WARD, CHADAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 303.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S. HYMA. R2 BY ADVS. SRI.S.ABHILASH, SRI.A.MUHAMMED RAFFI.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-06-2013,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **rs.** **Crl.MC.No. 2028 of 2013** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-** |**ANNEXURE**|**1.**|**THE COPY OF FIR WITH FIS IN CRIME NO.606/2009**| |---|---|---| |||**OF CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION.**| |**ANNEXURE**|**2.**|**THE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.606/2009 OF**| |||**CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION.**| |**ANNEXURE**|**3.**|**THE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE**| |||**2ND RESPONDENT.**| **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE.** **rs.** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No. 2028 of 2013** **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 24[th] day of June, 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 Crime No. 606/2009 of Chadayamangalam Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 308 r/w 149 of I.P.C., with a prayer to quash the Annexure 1 FIR and Annexure 2 Final Report in Crime No.606/2009 of Chadayamangalam Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant to the same including S.C. No.183/2011 on the file of Assistant Sessions Court, Kottarakara, as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that the accused Nos.1 to 5 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly on 1/9/2009 at about 2.30 p.m at Madanada junction and in furtherance of their common intention to cause grievous hurt to the defacto complainant due to their previous animosity towards him. The accused persons came to the place of occurrence in an autorikshaw and 1[st] accused inflicted a cut injury with a knife on the defacto complainant, the 2[nd] **Crl.M.C. No. 2028 of 2013** 2 accused beaten him with a pliers and the 5[th] accused beaten him with a brick. The learned P.P on instruction submitted that the injuries sustained by the defacto complainant is only abrasion and counsel submitted that the case is settled out of court since they are neighbors. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, as well as the second respondent and 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 second 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 **Crl.M.C. No. 2028 of 2013** 3 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, 323, 324, 326, 308 r/w 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 second respondent, it appears to me that the 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 case, the Supreme Court has held as follows:- - _“57. The position that emerges from the_ **Crl.M.C. No. 2028 of 2013** 4 _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 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_ **Crl.M.C. No. 2028 of 2013** 5 _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 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 Annexures -1 and 2 and all further proceedings pending 6 ## **Crl.M.C. No. 2028 of 2013** against the petitioners in Crime No.606/2009 of Chadayamangalam Police Station and all further proceedings thereto. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** AS