High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2013-03-06Quashed

CRL.M.C. No. 581 of 2013

Case / Petition Number:CRL.M.C.NO.581/13

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. T. Ravikumar
Judgment Date: 2013-03-06
Court Decision / Holding: The Crl.M.C.581/13 is allowed. Annexure-A2 final report in crime No. 707/2011 and all further proceedings in CC No. 99/2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Hosdurg, are quashed.
Final Disposition: Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Abdul Samad @ Samad
Noushad R.
Noushad M.
Abdul Rahman K. I @ Rahman
P. Abdul Azeez @ Azeez

Respondents

The State of Kerala through the Station House Officer Bekal Police Station, Kasaragod Taluk, Kasaragod District (by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala)
Sabad Yacob C.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. T. Madhu

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. Bindumol Joseph (for Respondent 2)
• Public Prosecutor Smt. S. Hyma (for Respondent 1)

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioners, five accused in crime No. 707/2011 of the Bekal Police Station, Hosdrug, challenge Annexure-A2, the final report in CC No. 99/2012. The complaint alleged offences under sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 506(ii) read with 149 IPC, with the final report later as Annexure-A2. Annexure-A3 is an affidavit sworn by the second respondent stating that the dispute has been settled and that there is no objection to quashing the FIR and the final report. The court heard submissions from the petitioners’ counsel, the second respondent, and the Public Prosecutor. Citing Supreme Court authority in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, and Kulwinder Singh guidelines, the court examined the scope of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in light of a settlement, even where some offences may be non-compoundable. The court recognized the lis has been amicably settled and that continuing proceedings would be unnecessary and a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the petition is allowed and Annexure-A2 and all further proceedings in CC 99/2012 are quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 143 IPCSection 147 IPCSection 148 IPCSection 323 IPCSection 324 IPCSection 506(ii) IPC read with Section 149 IPCSection 320 Cr.P.C.Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings when continuation would be unnecessary or unjust.
Guidelines on quashing criminal proceedings when there is a legitimate settlement (as discussed in Gian Singh and Kulwinder Singh).
Recognition that certain offences may be compounded and that settlement can influence continuation of proceedings.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners seek quashing of Annexure-A2 final report and all further proceedings in CC No. 99/2012 on the basis of Annexure-A3, stating settlement of the lis by the defacto complainant. Relying on B.S. Joshi and Gian Singh, they argue that the High Court can exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash where continuation of proceedings is unnecessary, particularly where a genuine settlement exists and the offences may be substantially resolved by compounding or amicable settlement.

Contentions of Respondents

The second respondent’s affidavit (Annexure-A3) shows settlement of the dispute, but the offences include non-compoundable elements (notably Section 506(ii) IPC). The State/Prosecution contends that non-compoundable offences, jurisdictional considerations, and public interest must be weighed; however, the Court recognizes the settled lis and the policy of avoiding unnecessary criminal prosecutions in appropriate cases guided by the cited Supreme Court principles.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana	2003 (2) KLT 1062 (SC)	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be invoked to quash proceedings despite the statutory requirements of Section 320 Cr.P.C., when continuation would be unnecessary or unjust, especially in light of a settlement.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)	Positive	Quoted for the guidelines on exercising inherent power to quash based on settlement, as refined by Kulwinder Singh guidelines referenced in paragraph 45.
Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab	2007 (4) KLT 245 (P. & H. H.C.) (F.B.)	Positive	Cited as the source of guidelines by which settlement can influence the exercise of inherent powers under 482 Cr.P.C. in quashing criminal proceedings.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against CRL.M.C. No. 581 of 2013 and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2013/15TH PHALGUNA 1934 Crl.MC.No. 581 of 2013 () -------------------------CC.99/2012 of J.M.F.C.-II,HOSDRUG CRIME NO. 707/2011 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION, KASARGOD PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 5: -------------------------------------- 1.ABDUL SAMAD @ SAMAD, AGED 22 YEARS S/O.ABDUL KHADER, R/A.HANNATH HOUSE KIZHOOR KADAPPURAM, KALANAD VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DIST. 2.NOUSHAD R., AGED 20 YEARS S/O.RASHEED, R/A.KIZHOOR KADAPPURAM KALANAD VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DIST. 3.NOUSHAD M., AGED 22 YEARS S/O.ABDUL KHADER, PALLIKANDAM HOUSE NEAR KIZHOOR PALLI, KALANAD VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DIST. 4.ABDUL RAHMAN K. I @ RAHMAN, AGED 23 YEARS S/O.KALLATRA IBRAHIM, KIZHOOR KADAPPURAM KALANAD VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT 5. P. ABDUL AZEEZ @ AZEEZ, AGED 20 YEARS S/O.MOHAMMED KUNHI, ANEEZ VILLA, KIZHOOR WEST KALANAD VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU RESPONDENTS/STATE: -------------------------- 1.THE STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE STATION HOSUE OFFICER BEKAL POLICE STATION, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 2.SABAD YACOB C., AGED 19 YEARS S/O.MOHAMMED IQBAL, R/A.CHEMBIRIKA HOUSE CANDRAGIRI POST, KALANAD VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK KASARAGOD DIST. R2 BY ADV. SMT.BINDUMOL JOSEPH R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-03-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.M.C.NO.581/13 ## APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A1:TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.707/2011 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2:TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.707/2011 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A3:THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 28.6.2012 SWORN IN BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ========================== CRL.M.C. No.581 OF 2013 ==========================** Dated this the 6[th] day of March, 2013 ## **ORDER** Petitioners are accused 1 to 5 in C.C.99 of 2012 on the files of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Hosdurg arising from crime No.707/2011 of Bekal Police Station. The delation against the petitioners is one of commission offences under sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 506(ii) read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The said crime was registered at the instance of the second respondent who allegedly sustained injuries at the hand of the petitioners. Annexure-A1 FIR was registered based on his complaint and Annexure-A2 is the final report laid thereon. This Crl.M.C has been filed seeking quashment of Annexure-A2 final report in crime No. 707/2011 of Bekal Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant thereto in C.C.99 of 2012 on the files of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Hosdurg on the strength of Annexure-A3. **Crl.M.C.581/13** 2 Annexure-A3 is the affidavit sworn in by the second respondent/ defacto complainant to the effect that the lis that led to the registration of the aforesaid crime has been settled by him with the petitioners. It is further stated therein that in the light of the said settlement, he got no objection in quashing Annexure-A1 FIR and Annexure-A2 final report and all further proceedings pursuant thereto in C.C.99 of 2012. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and also the learned Public prosecutor. The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent with Annexure-A3 affidavit sworn in by the second respondent would undoubtedly go to show that the entire lis that constrained the second respondent to lodge the complaint that resulted in the registration of the aforesaid crime has been settled between the parties. True that the petitioners are alleged to have committed non-compoundable offences as well. In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003 (2) KLT 1062 (SC))** , the provisions under **Crl.M.C.581/13** 3 section 320 Cr.P.C cannot limit the exercise of powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. When it is found that continuance of criminal proceedings has become absolutely unnecessary, this Court is having duty to prevent continuation of such proceedings in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab** [ **2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC).** In **Gian Singh's** case (supra) the guidelines framed by a five-Judge Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in **Kulwinder Singh** v. **State of Punjab (2007 (4) KLT 245 (P. & H. H.C.) (F.B.))** have been quoted in paragraph 45. Evidently, such guidelines in the matter of exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been framed after referring to various decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court including the decision in **Gian Singh's** case (supra). Guideline ## (d) thereunder reads thus:- - **“d.** Minor offences as under S.279 I.P.C. may be permitted to be compounded on the basis of legitimate settlement between the parties. Yet another offence which remains non-compoundable is S.506(II) I.P.C., which is punishable with 7 years imprisonment. It is the judicial experience that an offence under S.506 I.P.C. in most cases is based on the oral declaration with different shades of intention. Another set of **Crl.M.C.581/13** 4 offences, which ought to be liberally compounded, are Ss.147 and 148 I.P.C., more particularly where other offences are compoundable. It may be added here that the State of Madhya Pradesh vide M.P. Act No.17 of 1999 (S.3) has made Ss. 506(II) I.P.C. 147 I.P.C. and 148 I.P.C. Compoundable offences by amending the schedule under S.320 Cr.P.C.” In this case, the petitioners are allegedly committed offence under Section 323 IPC which is compoundable besides offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324 and 506(ii) read with Section 149, I.PC. In the light of Annexure-A3 affidavit sworn in by the second respondent who is the injured in the alleged attack the entire disputes between himself and the petitioners have been settled amicably. In the circumstances continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners based on Annexure-A2 final report has become absolutely unnecessary and the chance for their successful prosecution is also very remote and bleak. In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure-A2 final report laid in crime No.707/2011 of Bekal Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant thereto in C.C.99 of 2012 on the files of the **Crl.M.C.581/13** 5 are Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Hosdurg hereby quashed. **C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)** **spc/** **Crl.M.C.581/13** 6 **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **JUDGMENT September, 2010** # **Crl.M.C.581/13** 7