Crl.M.C.No.2938 of 2013

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** ## **WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2013/9TH SRAVANA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2938 of 2013 ()** ## **--------------------------SC. NO.496/2011 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-I), MANJERI. CRIME NO. 225/2010 OF WANDOOR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM.** **..........** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 5:** **----------------------------------------------** **1. RAJESH @ UNNI, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.BALACHANDRAN, NAMBILATT HOUSE, CHULLIYOODE, PULVATTA, KARUVARAKUNDU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **2. T.K.RAJEEV, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.VASUDEVAN, THEKKEKULANGARA HOUSE, CHATHANGOTTUPURAM, CHERUCODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **3. JAMSHEER, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL RAZAK, IPPINIKKADAN HOUSE, PADIKUNNU, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **4. SHEMIL.K., AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.MAJEED, KAKKADAN HOUSE, RAMANKUTHU P.O., NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **5. MUHAMMED ASHIF, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.HAMEED, THAYYALIMARAKKARAKATH HOUSE, MUTHUKAD, RAMANKUTHU P.O., NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN, SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN.** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE:** **--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. DINESH KUMAR, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR, CHERUPARAKKAL HOUSE, NADUVATH, THIRUVALI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 123.** **2. ANITHA, AGED 31 YEARS, W/O.DINESH KUMAR, CHERUPARAKKAL HOUSE, NADUVATH, THIRUVALI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 123.** **3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **R1 & R2 BY ADV. SMT. ARCHANA V.C. R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S. HYMA.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **rs.** **Crl.MC.No. 2938 of 2013** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-** - **ANNEXURE 1 COPY OF THE FIR AND FIS IN CRIME NO.225/2010 OF WANDOOR POLICE STATION DATED 01/06/2010.** **ANNEXURE 2 COPY OF THE CHARGE IN CRIME NO.225/2010 OF WANDOOR POLICE STATION.** ## **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:-** **NIL.** ## **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE.** **rs.** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.2938 of 2013 ------------------------------Dated this the 31[st] day of July, 2013.** ## **O R D E R** 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 accused Nos.1 to 5 in S.C.No.496/2011 of Additional District & Sessions court Ad hoc-1, Manjeri (FTI Manjeri), which is a case instituted upon the police report [in Crime No. 225/2010 of Wandoor Police Station in Malappuram District] for the offences punishable under Sections 394 and 354 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexures 1 and 2, as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that on 31.5.2010 at about 14.30 hours, while the respondents 1 and 2 along with their family members were returning in their Maruti car bearing registration No.KL-10 AA/3382 2 ## **Crl.M.C.No.2938 of 2013** after attending a marriage function and reached Kootanpara, 4 persons known to the 1[st] respondent stopped the car and the 1[st] accused dragged him out of the car holding him by collar and another accused dragged the 2[nd] respondent and child out of the car, the 1[st] accused along with other persons beat the 1[st] respondent with iron pipe and had taken the car and driven away and thereby committed the offences. Now, the case of the petitioners is that the matter is settled out of court and accordingly respondent nos.1 and 2, who are respectively the de facto complainant and the injured, sworn into separate affidavits dated 11.7.2013 and the contesting parties have filed a compounding petition signed by them and counter signed by their respective counsel. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that during the pendency of the above case, the matter is settled amicably between the parties to the 3 ## **Crl.M.C.No.2938 of 2013** 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 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents, who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondents submitted that the above respondents, who are the de facto complainants do not intends to proceed any further against the petitioners and they have no grievance against them. 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 under Sections 394 and 4 ## **Crl.M.C.No.2938 of 2013** 354 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 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents, it appears to me that the de facto complainants 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 Gian Singh's 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 5 **Crl.M.C.No.2938 of 2013** 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, 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. According to me, 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 6 ## **Crl.M.C.No.2938 of 2013** 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 Annexures - 1 and 2 and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in S.C.No.496/2011 of Additional District & Sessions court Ad hoc-1, Manjeri (FTI Manjeri) in Crime No.225/2010 of Wandoor Police Station in Malappuram District. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** ami/ //True copy// P.A. to Judge