Crl.M.C. Nos. 1676 & 1678 of 2013

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** ## **WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2013/26TH ASHADHA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1676 of 2013** ## **--------------------------------** **CP 126/2012 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,VARKALA CRIME NO. 278/2012 OF KALLAMBALAM POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANDAPURAM** **-------------** ## **PETITIONER(S)/A1 TO A6:** **-------------------------------------** **1. SIBI, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. MOHAMMED SAAB, KALLUVILA VEEDU, PULLOOR MUKKU, KUDAVOOR DESOM, KUDAVOOR VILLAGE.(A1)** **2. MISHAB, AGED 48 YEARS S/O. ABDUL JABBAR, KALLUVILA VEEDU, NEAR AMINIA ARABIC COLLEGE, KUDAVOOR DESOM,** - **KUDAVOOR VILLAGE.(A2)** **3. NABEEL, AGED 18 YEARS, S/O. NOUSHAD, KALLUVILA VEEDU, PULLOOR MUKKU, KUDAVOOR DESOM, KUDAVOOR VILLAGE (A3)** **4. SAMEER, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. SALAHUDHEEN, K.S. MANZIL, KALLUVILA VEEDU, PULLOOR MUKKU, KUDAVOOR DESOM, KUDAVOOR VILLAGE.(A4)** **5. YOOSUF, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. KASIMPILLA, THOTTINKKARA VEEDU, KALLUVILA, KUDAVOOR DESOM, KUDAVOOR VILLAGE. (A5)** **6. SHAN, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. MASOOD, KALLUVILA VEEDU, PULLOOR MUKKU, KUDAVOOR DESOM, KUDAVOOR VILLAGE (A6)** **BY ADV. SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & CW1:** **--------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALLAMBALAM POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **PJ** **...2/-** **..2..** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1676 of 2013** **--------------------------------** **2. THAHA, AGED 23 YEARS, (CW1),** - **S/O. SHIHABUDHEEN, THAHA MANZIL, NEAR KSEB OFFICE, KALLAMBALAM, OTTOOR VILLAGE, PIN-695605, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** ## **3. NAZEEM, AGE 28,** **(CW2) S/O. MOHAMED MANZIL, NAAZ VILLA, ATTARAKONAM, MULLAROMKODU, OTTUR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. PIN-695605.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA R2,3 BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH A.K** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-07-2013, ALONG WITH CRL.MC.NO.1678/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **PJ** **Crl.MC.No. 1676 of 2013** **---------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-------------------------------------** **ANX.A PHTOCOPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 278/2012 OF KALLAMBALAM POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE B CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 278/2012 OF KALLAMBALAM POLICE STATION, NOW PENDING AS C.P. NO. 126/12 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL 1ST CLASS MAGISTRATE-I VARKALA.** **ANX.C AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT/CW1** **ANX.D AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT /CW2.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **---------------------------------------** **NIL.** **/ TRUE COPY /** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **PJ** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** **---------------------------------------Crl.M.C.Nos. 1676 & 1678 of 2013 ----------------------------------------** Dated this the 17[th] day of July, 2013 ## **O R D E R** As the above two Crl.M.Cs. are preferred against the proceedings initiated on the basis of the case and counter case and the parties to the proceedings in the above cases are same, and the subject matter is connected with the incident taken place on 4.3.2012, according to me, these Crl.M.Cs. can be taken for hearing together and disposed of by this common order. 2. Crl.M.C.No.1676 of 2013 is directed against the committal proceedings pending in C.P.No.126 of 2012 in the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Varkala which was instituted on the basis of the report in Crime No.278 of 2012 of Kallambalam Police Station, whereas Crl.M.C.No.1678 of 2013 is directed against the proceedings in C.P.No.127 of 2012 of the above court, which was instituted upon on the basis of report in Crime No.279 of 2012 of the same Police Station. Crl.M.C.No.1676 of 2013 is preferred by accused Nos. 1 to 6 in Crime Crl.M.C.Nos.1676 & 1678 of 2013 :-2-: No.278 of 2012 in which the contesting respondents are CW1 and CW2, who are the de facto complainant and the injured whereas in Crl.M.C.No.1678 of 2013, the petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 5 in Crime No.279 of 2012 of the Kallambalam Police Station and therein, the second respondent is the de facto complainant. The alleged incident has taken place connected with the compromise talk with respect to an earlier incident between the third accused in Crime No.278 of 2012 and the brother of the CW1 in the very same crime. Now, the case of the parties to the above two crimes is that the whole incident originated due to the difference of opinion of two fraction of students and subsequently, the entire dispute is sorted out and settled. Therefore, the prayers in both the above petitions are to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioners in the above cases as the matter is settled out of court. 3. Heard the counsel for the petitioners in the above case and also the counsel representing the contesting respondents. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor is also of the opinion that as the matter is settled out of court, especially the dispute is between the two Crl.M.C.Nos.1676 & 1678 of 2013 :-3-: fraction of students, the settlement can be recorded. 5. In Crl.M.C.No.1676 of 2013, the de facto complainant, who is the second as well as the third respondents, who are the injured sworn to Annexures C and D affidavits respectively. Similarly in Crl.M.C.No.1678 of 2013, the second respondent who is the de facto complainant sworn to Anenxure C affidavit. 6. I have carefully considered the above submissions of the respective counsel. I have verified the documents and materials produced along with the above petitions. In the given facts and circumstances of the case and especially in the light of the settlement arrived between the parties to the dispute, as I indicated earlier, the learned Public Prosecutor has also no objection in allowing the above petitions. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the cases, it can be seen that the offences involved in the above cases 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 respondents concerned, it appears to me Crl.M.C.Nos.1676 & 1678 of 2013 :-4-: that the injured/the de facto complainant have 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 case, 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 predominatingly 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, 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........”_ Crl.M.C.Nos.1676 & 1678 of 2013 **==> picture [21 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** 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, these Criminal M.Cs. can be allowed granting the relief as sought for. In the result, these Crl.M.Cs. are allowed, quashing all further proceedings in Annexure B final report pending as C.P.No.126/2012 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Varkala against the accused therein, who are the petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.1676 of 2013 and quashing all further proceedings Crl.M.C.Nos.1676 & 1678 of 2013 :-6-: against the petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.1678 of 2013, who are the accused in Annexure B final report and in C.P.No.127/2012 of the very same court. **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge.** MBS/