Faisal and others v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** ## **MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2014/5TH JYAISHTA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2538 of 2014 (B)** ## **--------------------------------------[CRIME NO. 423/2014 OF TRICHUR EAST POLICE STATION]** **..........** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:** **------------------------------------** **1. FAISAL, S/O.ALI, AGED 35 YEARS, CHALIL HOUSE, KADAPPURAM P.O, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **2. IQBAL, S/O.MUHAMMED KUTTY, AGED 45 YEARS, KARAKETTYAKATHU HOUSE, GURUVAYOOR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **3. MANU SHAHUL, S/O.SHAHUL,AGED 27 YEARS, PANIKKA VEETTIL HOUSE, KORATTY, KULAYIDAM P.O., CHERUVAYOOR.** **4. NOUFAL.T.U., S/O.USMAN, AGED 33 YEARS, THURAKKAL HOUSE, CHALISSERY.** **5. SHAHUL, AGED 55 YEARS,** - **PANIKKA VEETTIL HOUSE, KORATTY, KULAYIDAM P.O, CHERUVAYOOR.** **6. USMAN, AGED 62 YEARS, THURAKKAL HOUSE, CHALISSERY.** **BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH.** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/ DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT/ STATE:** **-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. KHADER, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.ABUBACKER, KARUPPAMVEETTIL HOUSE, CHOWALLOORAPDI, KANDANISSERRY, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 001.** **2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TRICHUR EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR-680 001.** **Prv.** ## **CRL.M.C. NO.2538/2014 – B:** **3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM -682 031.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.JUSTUS, R2 & R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S. HYMA.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-05-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Prv.** ## **CRL.M.C. NO.2538/2014 – B:** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:** **ANNEXURE-1: TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO.423/2014 AND THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT.** - **ANNEXURE-2: TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT STATEMENT IN O.S NO.73/2014 ON THE FILE OF SUB COURT, THRISSUR.** **ANNEXURE-3: AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT (DEFACTOCOMPLAINANT).** ## **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL.** ## **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE.** **Prv.** **K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J. -----------------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.2538 of 2014 ------------------------------------------------Dated this the 26[th] day of May, 2014** ## **ORDER** This is an application filed by the accused in Crime No.423/2014 of Thrissur East Police Station to quash the proceedings on the basis of the settlement u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioners are accused numbers 1 to 6 in Crime no.423/2014 of Thrissur East Police Station, which was registered on the basis of the statement given by the first respondent alleging offences under Sections 143, 147, 448 and 506(i) r/w Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. The case itself has been registered on the basis of some misunderstanding occurred in the conduct of the foot ware shop of the de facto complainant by the second petitioner and on account of that misunderstanding crimes have been registered and O.S Crl.M.C No.2538/2014 2 No.73/2014 was also filed before the Sub Court, Thrissur. Now, in the mediation, the entire matter has been settled between the parties and joint petition has been filed to withdraw the suit. The first respondent also agreed to withdraw the criminal proceedings. Since it is in the crime stage, neither the police nor the court will drop further proceedings. So they have no other remedy to approach this court seeking the following relief: _Quash Annexure 1 proceedings (ie, Crime No.423/2014 of Thrissur East Police Station on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate - I, Thrissur)_ 3. First respondent appeared through counsel and submitted that the matter has been settled in the mediation and all the litigations pending between the parties have been agreed to be withdrawn and he has no objection in allowing the application. Learned counsel for petitioner also submitted that first respondent Crl.M.C No.2538/2014 3 has filed Annexure 3 affidavit stating these facts. The Counsel for petitioner has also stated that in view of the settlement no purpose will be served by retaining the case. So, he pressed for allowing the application. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that the case has been registered on the basis of the business dispute between the parties and the matter has been settled in the mediation, but, opposed the application. 5. It is an admitted fact that second petitioner and de facto complainant were conducting a foot ware shop in Thrissur town and there was some misunderstanding occurred in the conduct of the business and on account of that, on the basis of the statement given by first respondent Annexure 1 First Information Report was registered earlier against three named persons and 36 identifiable persons alleging offences under Sections 448, 395 and 506(ii) r/w Crl.M.C No.2538/2014 4 Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Later, during investigation, it was revealed that there were only 6 persons involved in the crime and no offence under Sections 395 or 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code were committed. But offences under Sections 143, 147, 448 and 506(i) r/w Section 149 of Indian Penal Code alone were committed. So, a report has been filed to delete Section 395 and 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code and add Section 143, 147 and 506(i) r/w Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and also implicate the present petitioners as the only accused who involved in the crime. Now, the entire disputes between the parties have been settled in the mediation and as per the settlement the amounts due to the parties have been quantified and paid and parties have agreed to withdraw all the litigations including the civil suit filed in respect of this dispute which is pending before the Sub Court, Thrissur as O.S No.73/2014 and the criminal case registered. Further, Crl.M.C No.2538/2014 5 petitioners and de facto complainant are related persons as well. On account of the settlement the entire disputes between the parties have been settled. Further, on going through the allegations it is clear that it is a business dispute that resulted in the registering of the crime and it cannot be said to be having any public interest as such. ## 6. In the decision reported in **Gian Singh v State of Punjab (2012(4) KLT 108(SC),** the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: _“The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing in criminal proceeding or F.I.R. 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. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of_ Crl.M.C No.2538/2014 6 _mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. 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, 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 case, 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 contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding 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 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.”_ Crl.M.C No.2538/2014 7 7. In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision and also considering the fact that on account of the business dispute misunderstanding arose between the parties and the criminal case has been registered and civil suit filed and on account of the mediation the matter has been settled between the parties and no purpose will be served by proceeding the case any longer as neither the de facto complainant nor the witnesses will support or co-operate with the investigation so as to enable the police to file final report and even if final report is filed conviction in such case is remote, this court feels that it is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked to quash the proceedings in order to promote the relationship between the parties and pendency of the crime should not be a hindrance for the relationship to continue. So, the application is allowed and Crl.M.C No.2538/2014 8 further proceedings in Crime No.423/2014 of Thrissur East Police Station as against the petitioners is hereby quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the Judicial First Class Magistrate - I, Thrissur so as to communicate the same to the concerned Police Station for necessary further action in the matter. ## **K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE** vdv