Crl.M.C.No.2700 of 2014 (SC 340/2013)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** ## **SATURDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2014/10TH JYAISHTA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2700 of 2014 ()** **--------------------------SC 340/2013 of SUB COURT, HOSDRUG** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4:** **----------------------------------------------** **1. MUHAMMED SHA B.K., AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL RAHMAN RESIDING AT KOOVATHOTTY HOUSE, KOOVATHOTTY, CHEMMANAD VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT** **2. MUHAMMED RAFEEQUE K.U. @ PANJU RAFEEQUE, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.UMMER, RESIDING AT KOOVATHOTTY HOUSE, KOOVATHOTTY, CHEMMANAD VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **3. TAJUDEEN K.A. @ TAJU, AGED 23 YEARS,S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN RESIDING AT MAKKOTTU HOUSE, MAKKOTTU MELPARAMBU, KALANAD VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **4. ABDUL SALEEM @ SALEEM, AGED 29 YEARS,S/O.ABDUL KHADER RESIDING AT K.G.N.QUARTERS, NADAKKAL ROAD, MELPARAMBU, KALANAD VILLAGE KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** **--------------------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. THE STATE OF KERALA** - **THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BEKAL POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 682 031.** **2. ASHARAF P.K., AGED 30 YEARS,S/O.PUNCHAR KUNHAMU, RESIDING AT PUNCHAR HOUSE, KEEZHOOR, KALANADU VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671 317.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. HYMA R2 BY ADV. SMT.BINDUMOL JOSEPH** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-05-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **BP** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2700 of 2014 ()** ## **---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **------------------------------------ANNX.A1 - THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.803/2010 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION. ANNX.A2 - THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.803/2010 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION. ANNX.A3 - THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 24-3-2014 SWORN IN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNX.A4 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF EVIDENCE IN CRIME NO.803/2010 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL. ---------------------------------------** ## **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** ## **BP** ## **K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.** ................................................. Crl.M.C.No.2700 of 2014 .................................................. Dated this the 31[st] day of May, 2014. ## **O R D E R** This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed by accused 1 to 4 in SC.No.340/2013 of Assistant Sessions Court, Hosdurg to quash the proceedings on the basis of a settlement under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioners are arrayed as accused 1 to 4 in Crime No.803/2010 of Bekal police station which was registered on the basis of a statement given by the defacto complainant/second respondent against the petitioners and four identifiable persons alleging commission of offences under sections 143, 148, 323, 324 and 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, final report was filed and after committal, the case was taken on file as SC.No.340/2013 on the file of Sessions Court, Kasaragod and thereafter it was made over to the Assistant Sessions Court, Hosdurg for disposal. 3. Now the matter has been settled between the parties and on account of the settlement, no purpose will be served by 2 Crl.M.C.No.2700 of 2014 proceeding with prosecution in this case and since some of the offences alleged are not compoundable in nature, they could not approach the court below for recording the settlement. So the petitioners have no other remedy except to approach this seeking the following relief: On these and other grounds to be urged at the time of hearing it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash Annexure-A2 final report and all further proceedings pursuant to it in Crime No.803/2010 of Bekal police station, which is now pending as S.C.No.340/2013 on the file of the learned Assistant Session's Court, Hosdurg as against the petitioners, so as to secure the ends of justice. 4. The second respondent appeared through counsel and submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties and on account of the settlement, their earlier relationship has been restored and he does not want to prosecute the petitioners in view of the settlement and he filed Annexure -A3 affidavit stating these facts. 5. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the settlement, no conviction is possible and keeping the case on file only amount to wastage of judicial time and prayed for allowing the application. Crl.M.C.No.2700 of 2014 3 6. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, as directed by this Court submitted that there is no other case against the petitioners, but opposed the application on the ground that grave offences like Section 308 is incorporated. 7. It is an admitted fact that in an incident happened on 20.11.2010, on the basis of the statement given by the second respondent, a crime was registered as Crime No.803/2010 of Bekal police station against the petitioners and other four identifiable persons alleging offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation, Annexure A2 final report was filed and after committal, the matter was taken on file as SC.No.340/2013 on the file of the Sessions Court, Kasaragod which was later made over to Assistant Sessions Court, Hosdurg for disposal. During the pendency of that proceedings, the matter has been settled between the parties due to intervention of mediators and well wishers of both the parties and old relationship between them has been restored. In view of the settlement, neither the defacto complainant nor his witnesses will likely to support the prosecution and conviction in such cases is remote and keeping the case on file will amount to Crl.M.C.No.2700 of 2014 4 wastage of judicial time. Further, it cannot be said to be a matter of public interest, but only a private dispute which has resulted in registering of the crime and filing of final report. 8. Further in the decision reported in **Gian Singh v. State** **of Punjab** (2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: “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 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 5 Crl.M.C.No.2700 of 2014 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 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.” 9. In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision and also on account of the settlement, there is no possibility of any conviction and allowing the case to proceed with will amount to wastage of judicial time and also considering the fact that the matter has been settled between the parties on account of the settlement and the relationship between the parties has been restored, this Court feels that this is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be invoked to quash the proceedings to promote the settlement. So, the application is allowed and further proceedings in SC.No.340/2013 (Crime No.803 of Bekal police station) on Crl.M.C.No.2700 of 2014 6 the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Hosdurg is hereby quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately. ## **Sd/-** ## **K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.** cl /true copy/ P.S to Judge Crl.M.C.No.2700 of 2014 7