Crl.M.C.No.561/2013-B

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** ## **FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/25TH SRAVANA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 561 of 2013 (B)** **------------------------------------[C.C. NO.454/2011 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KASARAGOD]** **.....................** ## **PETITIONERS/CCUSED NOS. 1 TO 4:** **----------------------------------------------------** **1. SHABEER, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O BEERAN, RESIDING AT MADATHIL HOUSE, ORAVUMKARA, KALANAD VILLAGE, P.O. KALANAD, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISRICT.** **2. ABBAS JAFFAR @ JAFFAR, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O AHAMMED, R/AT. ALAMPADY, MUTTATHODY, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **3. MUHAMMED ASHRAFF @ ASHRAFF, AGED 47 YEARS,, S/O AHAMMED, BANDICHAL HOUSE, P.O. THEKKIL, KASARGOD DISTRICT.** **4. SULAIMAN BADHUSHA @ BADHUSHA, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O AHAMMED, R/AT. BANDICHAL, P.O THEKKIL, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.K.P.HARISH.** ## **RESPONDENT/STATE, COMPLAINANT AND WITNESSES:** **---------------------------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA,** - **REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **2. P.A.ABDUL BASHEER, AGED 37 YEARS,** - **S/O MUHAMMED KUNHI, R/T. MUNDAMKULAM HOUSE, BEVINJE, THEKKIL FERRY P.O., CHENGALA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARGOD DISTRICT.** **3. BEEFATHIMA, AGED 57 YEARS,** - **W/O MOHAMMED, RESIDING AT MUNDANKULAM HOUSE, THEKKIL FERRY P.O., CHENGALA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **Prv.** **CRL.M.C. NO.561/2013-B:** **4. YASER, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O MOIDEENKUTTY, RESIDING AT MUNDANKULAM HOUSE, THEKKIL FERRY P.O., CHENGALA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. V.H. JASMINE, R2 TO R4 BY ADV. SMT.K.K.MEERA NAMBIAR.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Prv.** ## **CRL.M.C. NO.561/2013-B:** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:** **ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT DATED 16.3.2010 FILED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, KASARGOD. ANNEXURE AII: TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME NO.251 OF 2010 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE AIII: TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 4.8.2010. ANNEXURE AIV: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8.5.2012 IN CRL.M.C.NO 1593/2012 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. ANNEXURE AV: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2. ANNEXURE AV(a): TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE RESPONDENT NO.3 ANNEXURE AV(b): TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE RESPONDENT NO.4.** ## **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL.** ## **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE.** **Prv.** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. -----------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.561 of 2013 -----------------------------------Dated this the 16[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 4 in C.C.No.454 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kasaragod which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No.283 of 2010 of Kasaragod Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 452 read with Section 34 of IPC of with a prayer to quash all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.454 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kasaragod as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The prosecution allegation in the complaint is that on 10/03/2010 at about 11.30 p.m. while the complainant was sitting in the house the accused came in two motor bikes and in an auto rickshaw and trespassed into the house and Crl.M.C.No.561 of 2013 :-2-: attacked the de facto complainant and his mother. By that time CW.3, who reached the place of occurrence was pushed by the accused and he fallen and sustained injury and thus, according to the prosecution, the accused have committed the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 452 read with Section 34 of IPC. Now, according to the prosecution, the entire dispute is settled with the de facto complainant, who is the second respondent and other injured, who are respondents 3 and 4. Thus, the de facto complainant/the second respondent preferred Annexure-AV affidavit and respondents 3 and 4/the injured have sworn into Annexures-AV(a) and AV(b) affidavits. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the 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 dispute is settled amicably between the parties which is the subject matter of the above case. Therefore, the continuation of the Crl.M.C.No.561 of 2013 :-3-: proceedings in the above case is abuse of process of law and proceedings. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondents submitted that the above respondents, who are the de facto complainant and the injured do not intend 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 including Annexures-AV, AV(a) and AV(b) affidavits. 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 341, 323 and 452 Crl.M.C.No.561 of 2013 :-4-: read with Section 34 of IPC 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 respondents, it appears to me that the injured and 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 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 Crl.M.C.No.561 of 2013 :-5-: 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 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 Crl.M.C.No.561 of 2013 :-6-: 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, this Criminal M.C. can be allowed granting the relief as sought for. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.454 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kasaragod. ## **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** skj True copy P.A. to Judge