Crl.M.C. No. 3289 of 2013

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** ## **WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/16TH SRAVANA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3289 of 2013** **---------------------------------[C.C. NO.404/2013 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT, PAYYANNUR, CRIME NO. 110/2013 OF PAZHAYANGADI POLICE STATION,KANNUR DISTRICT]** **.............** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 2 TO 5:** **------------------------------------------------------** **1. YOUSAF, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. MOHAMMED `SAMRA MANZIL', NEAR SHADULI MASJID, PUTHIYANGADI, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **2. HISHAN C.H., AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. ABDULLA, 'SHEREEFA MANZIL', PUTHIYANGADI, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **3. MUTHALEEB. C.H., AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. ABDULLA, `SHEREEFA MANZIL', PUTHIYANGADI, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **4. MUHAMMED ALI.U., AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. ABDULLA, ULLI HOUSE, PUTHIYANGADI, KANNUR DISTRICT.** - **BY ADVS.SRI.M.SASINDRAN,** ## **SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR.** ## **RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/STATE:** **-----------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. M.NISSAM, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O. ASHRAF, MANNAN HOUSE, MADAYI AMSOM, PUTHIYANGADI ITTAMMAL, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN- 670 304.** **2. STATE OF KERALA - REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 31.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.R.SREEJITH, R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S. HYMA.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Prv.** **CRL.M.C. NO.3289/2013:** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:** **ANNEXURE AI: COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME NO.110 OF 2013 OF PAZHAYANGADI POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE AII: COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.110 OF 2013 OF PAZHAYANGADI POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE A III: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1. ENDORSING THE FACTUM OF COMPOUNDING OF THE SAID OFFENCES AND THE SETTLEMENT OF THE DISPUTES.** ## **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE.** **Prv.** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. -----------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.3289 of 2013 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 07[th] day of August, 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.2 to 5 in C.C.No.404 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No.110 of 2013 of Pazhayangadi Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 323, 447, 427, 294(b) & 506(1) read with Section 149 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure-AII Final Report in Crime No.110 of 2013 of Pazhayangadi Police Station which is now pending as C.C.No.404 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that on 09/02/2013 at about 8 p.m. the accused being the workers of IUML trespassed into the compound of the de facto Crl.M.C.No.3289 of 2013 :-2-: complainant who is SDPI worker and attacked him and abused his father in filthy language. Thus, according to the prosecution, the accused have committed the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 323, 447, 427, 294 (b), 506(1) & 149 of I.P.C. Now, the case of the petitioners is that the dispute is settled between the petitioners and the first respondent, who is the de facto complainant, who has sworn into Annexure-AIII affidavit. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the 1[st] 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 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 1[st] respondent who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondent Crl.M.C.No.3289 of 2013 :-3-: 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 including Annexure-AIII 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, 341, 323, 447, 427, 294(b) & 506(1) 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 1[st] Crl.M.C.No.3289 of 2013 :-4-: 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 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 Crl.M.C.No.3289 of 2013 :-5-: 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 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 Crl.M.C.No.3289 of 2013 :-6-: 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-AII Final Report in Crime No.110 of 2013 of Pazhayangadi Police Station and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.404 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur. **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** skj