Crl.M.C. No. 2865 of 2016

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2016/6TH JYAISHTA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 2865 of 2016 -------------------------** **LPC 1/2016 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KASARAGOD CRIME NO. 453/2011 OF KUMBLA POLICE STATION, KASARGOD** **....** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS.3,7 AND 9:** **------------------------------------** **1. ABOOBACKER SIDIQUE @ VELLACHI SIDIQUE,** - **S/O. HASSAINAR, AGED 23 YEARS, BUSHARA MANZIL, SHIRIYA, MP XV-213, KASARAGOD.** **2. ALI, S/O.MUHAMMED KUNHI, AGED 28 YEARS, ARIKKADY HOUSE, KUMBLA, KASARAGOD.** **3. ABUBACKER SIDDIQ @ CID SIDDIQ AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. MOIDEEN KUNHI, THARAKKAL MANZIL, SHIRIYA, KASARAGOD** **BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANTS AND STATE:** **-------------------------------------** **1. THE ADDITIONAL SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUMBLA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671 321.** **2. ZUBAIR,** - **S/O. ABDUL KADER, AGED 37 YEARS, NAMMALE VEEDU, NEAR SMALL MASJID, ARIKADY, KUMBLA, KASARAGOD - 671 321.** **3. MOHAMMED ALI, S/O.MOHAMMED, AGED 31 YEARS, ARIKKADY KADAVATH, ARIKADY, KUMBLA, KASARAGOD - 671 321.** **msv/** **-2-** **-2-** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2865 of 2016** **-----------------------** ## **4. AHAMMED,** - **S/O. MOIDEEN KUNHI, AGED 36 YEARS, RESIDING DO** ## **5. ABDUL KADER,** **S/O. UMMER, AGED 64 YEARS, RESIDING DO** ## **6. STATE OF KERALA,** - **REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM - 682 031.** **R1 & R6 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN R2-R5 BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **msv/** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2865 of 2016 -----------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** ## **-----------------------** - **A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT** - **A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 31-7-2015 IN SC NOS 898/2012 AND 335/2013 ON THE FILES OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, KASARAGOD** - **A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT** - **A4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT** - **A5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT** - **A6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:** - **------------------------** ## **NIL** ## **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.S.TO JUDGE** **Msv/** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 2865 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 27[th] May, 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **ORDER** This application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) seeking invocation of powers of this Court to quash pending Criminal Proceedings. 2. Crime No.453 of 2011 of Kumbla Police Station was registered at the instance of second respondent against the petitioners and 9 others under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324 and 308 read with Section 149 of the IPC. 3. After completion of the investigation, police laid the final report before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Initially the case against accused 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 10 were committed to the Court of Sessions and the case was taken cognizance of as S.C.No.898 of 2012 by the Assistant Sesssions Judge, Kasaragod. Later 8[th] accused surrendered and his case was separately committed and taken cognizance of by the learned Sessions Judge as S.C.No.335 of 2013. The Crl.M.C. No.2865 of 2016 -2- petitioners were not available for trial and the case against them were split up. As per Annexure II common judgment dated 31.7.2015, the above accused were acquitted under Section 232 of the Code. The case against the petitioners were included in the long pending list and numbered as L.P.No.1 of 2016 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kasaragod. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioners and respondents 2 to 5, have decided to resolve their disputes and to live in harmony. Respondents 3 to 5 are the injured and they are also represented by counsel. 5. Learned counsel for the Respondents 2 to 5, relying on Annexures III to VI affidavits sworn to by the respondents submitted that the matter has been settled and the respondents do not intend that the criminal proceedings against petitioners herein should continue any further. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that the State has no objection in acting on Annexures III to VI affidavits sworn to by the _de facto_ complainant and injured witnesses as it would promote Crl.M.C. No.2865 of 2016 -3- peace and harmony. It is also submitted that the petitioners are not persons with any criminal antecedents. 7. It is thus borne out from the submissions made at the Bar that the parties have amicably settled their disputes with their free will and without any kind of pressure, influence or coercion. The compromise, it is felt, is voluntarily and genuine and can be acted upon. The law with regard to the settlement of criminal disputes on the strength of an amicable resolution of the disputes between the parties is no more _res integra_ . ## 8. **In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC** **303),** Apex Court has laid down that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. This view was reiterated in **Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab. (2014) 6 SCC 466) and Yogendra Yadav and Others V State of Jharkhand and Another 2014 (9) SCC 653 .** 9. It was held that the inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be Crl.M.C. No.2865 of 2016 -4- 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. It was held that certain categories of cases involving heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute as those offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. But those cases where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and those in which the parties have resolved their entire dispute could fittingly be quashed by this Court taking into account the compromise between the offender and victim. In such cases the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused and the _de facto_ complainant to great oppression and prejudice. 10. I have also gone through the Annexure II judgment and in paragraph No. 11, the learned Sessions Judge has observed that none of the prosecution witnesses had supported the case of the prosecution. The learned Sessions Crl.M.C. No.2865 of 2016 -5- Judge finally held that there is no material to connect the accused with the offence alleged. 11. After having anxiously considered the submissions, it is felt that it would be unfair and contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding. It would only tantamount to abuse of process of law to subject the parties to the ordeal of a protracted criminal proceeding despite the settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer. Settlement will augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that continuance of prosecution as against the petitioners will be an exercise in futility. The petition is allowed and Annexure I final report and all further proceedings in L.P.No.1 of 2016 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kasaragod shall stand quashed. sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE** kp/-28.5.16