Crl.M.C. No.1737 of 2014

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** ## **TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/4TH CHAITHRA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1737 of 2014** **--------------------------CRIME NO. 266/2014 OF MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM ...** **PETITIONER(S):ACCUSED NO.1 TO 6:** **---------------------------------------------------------** **1. AKBAR ALI,AGED 25 YEARS,** - **S/O.ABDULKHADER, EAST VAZHAPPILLY, MOOVATTUPUZHA.** **2. HASHIM, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.MYTHEEN, PAYYAKKUDI HOUSE, EAST VAZHAPPILLY, MOOVATTUPUZHA.** **3. MYTHEEN,AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.PAYYAKKUDI HOUSE, EAST VAZHAPPILLY, MOOVATTUPUZHA.** **4. SULAIMAN, AGED 18 YEARS, S/O.NIZAR, PARAPPATTU HOUSE, EAST VAZHAPPILLY, MOOVATTUPUZHA.** **5. SHIBAS,AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.UMMAR, PALLIPPATTU HOUSE, EAST VAZHAPPILLY, MOOVATTUPUZHA.** **6. BIJU CHELLAPPAN,AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.CHELLAPPAN, PUTHENPURA HOUSE, EAST VAZHAPPILLY, MUVATTUPUZHA.** **BY ADVS.SRI.V.V.RAJA** **SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR** **..2/-** **Kss** **..2....** ## **Crl.M.C.No.1737/2014** ## **RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/INJURED WITNESS & STATE:** - **-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. MOHSIN.C.MOHAMMED,AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED, CHAMALAYIL HOUSE, VAZHAPPILLI KARA, VELLOORKUNNAM EAST, MOOVATTUPUZHA 683 501.** **2. MUBEEN C.M.,AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED, CHAMALAYIL HOUSE, VAZHAPPILLY KARA, VELLOORKUNNAM EAST, MOOVAPTTUPUZHA 683 501.** **3. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031.** - **R1 & R2 BY ADV. SMT.C.G.BINDU R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SAREENA GEORGE.P.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Kss** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1737 of 2014** **-----------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURE: ---------------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE 1. COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.266 OF 2014 OF THE** ## **MOOVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: -----------------------------------------------N I L** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **Kss** K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------------------------------------- Crl. M.C. No.1737 of 2014 --------------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 25[th] day of March, 2014 ## O R D E R This criminal miscellaneous case is filed by accused Nos.1 to 6 in Crime No.266/2014 of Moovattupuzha Police Station, to quash the proceedings, on the basis of settlement arrived at between them and the defacto-complainant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the 'Code'). 2. It is alleged in the petition that, the petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 6 in Crime No.266/2014 of Moovattupuzha Police Station and the case was registered on the basis of the statement given by the first respondent against the petitioners, alleging offences under Section 143, 147, 294(b), 323, 341, 324, 427 and read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The incident happened in respect of taking of tipper lorries carrying metal during night causing nuisance to others and when this was objected some incident occurred and apart from this case another Crl. M.C. No.1737 of 2014 2 case as Crime No.267/2014 of same police station was also registered, on the basis of the statement given by one of the accused persons here, against the defacto-complainant and others. Now both the cases have been settled between the parties, due to the intervention of neighbours, mediators and well-wishers and some solution has been arrived at in respect of taking the vehicles from the crusher unit belonging to the first respondent. They do not want to proceed with the prosecution. In view of the settlement, no purpose will be served by proceeding with the investigation. Since, the case is in the crime stage, neither the court nor the police will drop the proceedings. So they have no other option except to approach this court, seeking the following relief: “In the above said circumstance it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash Annexure-1 FIR and all further proceedings in Crime No.266 of 2014 of the Moovattupuzha Police Station by allowing this Criminal Miscellaneous Case.” ## 3. Respondents 1 and 2 appeared through 3 Crl. M.C. No.1737 of 2014 counsel and submitted that, the matter has been settled and some solution has been arrived at in the mediation held at the intervention of respectful personalities in the locality, regarding the transport of metals from the crusher unit run by the first respondent herein. They do not want to prosecute the case. They have also filed affidavits in support of their submissions made. The counsel for the petitioners also submitted that in view of the settlement, no purpose will be served. 4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, as directed by this court, submitted that the first petitioner herein in the police constable and in respect of this incident a disciplinary action has been initiated by the department and opposed the application, on the ground that the investigation is in the primitive stage. 5. It is an admitted fact that, the first respondent is conducting a crusher unit and there was some 4 Crl. M.C. No.1737 of 2014 dispute regarding the transport of metals from the crusher unit using heavy vehicles through the road and the public had objected the same and on account of that, some incident happened and the first and the 2[nd] respondent sustained some injuries. On the basis of the statement given by the first respondent Annexure-A1 first information report was registered as crime No.266/2014 of Moovattupuzha Police Station and the investigation is in progress. In respect of the same incident, on the basis of the statement given by the 2[nd] petitioner herein, another case was registered as Crime No.267/2014 of the same police station, in respect of the same incident. Both these cases were now settled between the parties, due to the intervention of mediators, well-wishers and the local people and some solution has been arrived at in respect of transport of metals from the crusher unit conducted by the first respondent herein. 6. It is true that, there were some allegations Crl. M.C. No.1737 of 2014 5 against the first petitioner, who is working in the police department and the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, in respect of the incident disciplinary proceedings have been recommended and that is pending. I am not at this stage going to the question, as to whether the department is entitled to proceed against the first petitioner etc., in this proceeding. Considering the fact that, entire dispute in the locality has been settled and the people are very much affected by running of crusher units in the residential areas and that has caused some problem, which appears to be the root cause for the incident and that has been resolved between the parties, no purpose will be served by proceeding with the case, as neither the defactocomplainant nor his witnesses are likely to support the case and even if the final report is filed, that will not end in conviction of the accused persons as well. 7. In the decision reported in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012(4) KLT 108 (SC)],** it has been Crl. M.C. No.1737 of 2014 6 ## held that: “The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceedings 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 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 FIR may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case an no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. 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. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. 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 mercantile, 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 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. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of the criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and Crl. M.C. No.1737 of 2014 7 compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question (s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 8. In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision and also considering the fact that, the matter has been settled between the parties and the entire incidents happened on account of running of a crusher unit in that area and transport of metal from the crusher unit during night time and it has become a social problem in the locality and that has been now settled and harmony has been brought in the locality and no purpose will be served by proceeding with the case, as neither the defactocomplainant, injured nor the witnesses are going to support the investigation or even if final report is filed, support the prosecution and proceeding with case will only a wastage of judicial time, this court feels that, it is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of the 'Code' can be invoked to quash the proceedings. So, the petition is allowed and further proceedings in Crime No.266/2014 of Crl. M.C. No.1737 of 2014 8 Moovattupuzha Police Station, as against the petitioners is quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Moovattupuzha, so as to inform the concerned Police Station for necessary further action in this regard. Sd/K. Ramakrishnan, Judge // True Copy // P.A. to Judge ss