Crl.M.C.No.3647 of 2013, High Court of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/7TH BHADRA, 1935 Crl.MC.No. 3647 of 2013 --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN *(SC.810/2010) of DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE CRIME NO. 452/2010 OF VATAKARA POLICE STATION , KOZHIKODE PETITIONERS : ACCUSED Nos.1 to 3 : ------------------------------- 1. MUHAMMED FAISAL, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.AMATH, AMBALATHINKAL HOUSE, VELLOOKKARA ROAD, CHANIYAM KADAVU.P.O., VATAKARA TALUK. 2. SHAHABU, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.KUNHABDULLA, MAMBIYEDATH HOUSE, THIRUVALLUR P.O., VATAKARA TALUK. 3. NISSAR, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.MOIDU, NAMBOOTIKKANDIPOYIL HOUSE, THIRUVALLUR P.O., VATAKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL RESPONDENTS : COMPLAINANTS: ------------------------------ 1. K.V.CHANDRAN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.BERAN, THOLANTE VALAPPIL HOUSE, CHANIYAM KADAVU P.O, VATAKARA TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SMT.P.A.ANEESHA R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.V.H.JASMINE THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: * The Case No.”SC810/2010” occurring in the cause title of the order dated 29.08.13 in Crl.M.C.3647/13 is corrected and substituted as “SC 850/2010” as per order dated 02.01.14 in Crl.M.A.10651/13 in Crl.M.C.3647/13. Sd/Assistant Registrar Crl.MC.No.3647 of 2013 ## APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS ------------------- ANNEXURE 1. COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.452/2010 OF VATAKARA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE 2. SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF THE IST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS --------------------- NIL. True copy P.A. To Judge ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. -----------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.3647 of 2013 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 29[th] day of August, 2013** ## **ORDER** 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 3 in S.C.No.810 of 2010 on the file of the District and Sessions Court, Kozhikode which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No.452 of 2010 of Vatakara Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 324 & 308 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act with a prayer to quash Annexure-I Final Report and all further proceedings in S.C.No.810 of 2010 on the file of the District and Sessions Court, Kozhikode as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that on 13/4/2010 at about 12.10 hours the petitioners came in a Motor cycle and attacked the 1[st] respondent with iron rode and sword by calling his caste name and thereby committed the offence punishable ## Crl.M.C.No.3647 of 2013 :-2-: under Sections 324 & 308 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act. Thus, according to the prosecution, the accused have committed the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 308 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act. Now the case of the petitioners is that, during the pendency of the above case, the entire dispute is settled with the de facto complainant, who is the first respondent herein, who has sworn into Annexure-II affidavit. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the 1[st] respondent. 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 dispute is settled amicably between the parties 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. Crl.M.C.No.3647 of 2013 :-3-: 5. The learned counsel for the 1[st] respondent who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondent submitted that the above respondent, who is the de facto complainant does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioners and he has 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 including Annexure-II affidavit. 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 324 & 308 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act 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 Crl.M.C.No.3647 of 2013 :-4-: approached this Court after having amicably settled the matter. From the submission made by the counsel for the 1[st] respondent, it appears to me that the de facto complainant has 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 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 Crl.M.C.No.3647 of 2013 :-5-: 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 pertinent to note that since the matter is settled out of court, in the event of proceeding with ## Crl.M.C.No.3647 of 2013 :-6-: 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 Annexure-I Final Report in Crime No.452 of 2010 of Vatakara Police Station and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in S.C.No.810 of 2010 on the file of the District and Sessions Court, Kozhikode. Sd/- ## **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** skj “S.C.No.810/2010” occurring in the 3[rd] and 10[th] lines of paragraph 1 and in the 4[th] line of last paragraph of the order dated 29/8/2013 in Crl.M.C.3647/2013 is corrected and substituted as “S.C.No.850/2010”, vide order dated 02/01/2014 in Crl.M.A.10651/2013 in Crl.M.C.3647/2013. Sd/- **Registrar (Judicial)**