Crl.M.C. No. 3714 of 2013

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/11TH BHADRA, 1935** **Crl.MC.No. 3714 of 2013 ()** **-------------------------------------** ## **CRIME NO. 448/2013 OF VIDYA NAGAR POLICE STATION , KASARGOD** **-------------** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 - 3:** **---------------------------------------------** **1. JAMAL.A., AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL RAHMAN, RESIDING AT PADINJARU HOUSE, BALADUKKA, CHERKALA, CHENGALA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **2. SHABEER C.M, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. MOIDEEN KUNHI, RESIDING AT KOLIKKATTA HOUSE, CHERKALA, CHENGALA VILLAGE, KASARAAGOD DISTRICT.** **3. ASHID C., AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. ASHARAF, NEAR NURSERY SCHOOL, PADY ROAD, CHERKALA, CHENGALA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.T.MADHU SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE:** **----------------------------------** ## **1. THE STATE OF KERALA** - **THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VIDYANAGAR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.** **2. SHAINUL ABDEEN, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. ALIYARKUNJU, RESIDING AT VALIYAVILAKIZHAKKETHIL, THRIPPILAZHIKKOM POST, KOLLAM DISTRICT, OVERSEER KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION, CHERKALA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671 541.** **3. ZAKARIA A.K, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.LATE ABDULLA MASTER, ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION, CHERKALA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671 541.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA R2 & 3 BY ADV. SMT.BINDUMOL JOSEPH** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-09-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **PJ** **Crl.MC.No. 3714 of 2013 ()** **-------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' ANNEXURE** **A1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.448/13 OF VIDYANAGAR POLICE STATION. A2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE ARREST INTIMATION IN CRIME NO.448/2013 OF VIDYANAGAR POLICE STATION. A3: THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 19/8/2013 SWORN IN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. A4: THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 19/8/2013 SWORN IN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURE** **NIL.** **/ TRUE COPY /** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **PJ** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No. 3714 of 2013** ## **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 2[nd] day of September, 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 the accused in Crime No.448/2013 of Vidyanagar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 332, 452 and 506(ii) r/w Section 149 of I.P.C., with a prayer to quash Annexure A1 FIR and all further proceedings pursuant to it in Crime No.448/2013 of Vidyanagar Police Station as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation leveled against the accused in the above crime is that on 25/7/2013 at about 10.35 p.m., the accused after forming themselves into an unlawful assembly trespassed into the Kerala State Electricity Board Section Office at Cherkala in Chengala Village and assaulted the defacto complainant. When the Assistant Engineer attempted to prevent the accused from assaulting the defacto complainant he was pushed out. The accused also thrown away the mobile phone and office phone. Thus, according to **Crl.M.C. No. 3714 of 2013** 2 the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 332, 452 and 506(ii) r/w Section 149 of I.P.C. Now, according to the petitioner, the entire disputes is settled with the respondents 2 and 3. The second respondent who is the defacto complainant and also the 3[rd] respondent had respectively sworn into Annexures A3 and A4 affidavit to the above effect. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the second respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the above case , the matter is settled amicably between the parties to the dispute 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 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 petitioner and he has no grievance against him. **Crl.M.C. No. 3714 of 2013** 3 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. 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, 294(b), 332, 452 and 506(ii) r/w 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 second respondent, it appears to me that the the de facto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioner 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, **Crl.M.C. No. 3714 of 2013** 4 ## 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 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,_ 5 ## **Crl.M.C. No. 3714 of 2013** _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. 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 6 ## **Crl.M.C. No. 3714 of 2013** Annexure-A1 and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in Crime No.448/2013 of Vidyanagar Police Station and all further proceedings thereto. ## **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** AS