Faisal, Ibrahim, Jaleel & Shamseer v. Asya and State of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2013/10TH ASHADHA, 1935 CRL.MC.NO. 2657 OF 2013 () --------------------------- ## AGAINST C.C. NO. 599/2012 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,NADAPURAM ------------------------- PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 4: ------------------------------------------------------ 1. FAISAL, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. ABDULRAHMN, PALLIPARAMBATH HOUSE, MUDAVANTHERI, THUNERI, VATAKARA TALUK. 2. IBRAHIM, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. AMMED, PATHAYAKODANTAVITA HOUSE, CHENNALODE, PATINHARE THERU. 3. JALEEL, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. ABDULLA, OLAKKENTAVIDA, THUNERI AMSOM MUDAVANTHERI DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK. 4. SHAMSEER, AGED 19 YEARS, S/O. AMMED, ALAKKANDI HOUSE, THUNERI AMSOM, MUDAVANTHERI DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKOOL RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT : 1. ASYA, AGED 34 YEARS, - D/O. AMMED, CHAMALI VEETTIL HOUSE, CHEKKYAD AMSOM, PARAKKADAVU DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK-PIN.673101. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SMT. P.A.ANEESHA BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAJESH VIJAYAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: NS CRL.MC.NO. 2657 OF 2013 () --------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS : ----------------------- ANNEXURE 1- F.I.STATEMENT OF 1ST RESPONDENT GIVEN TO VALAYAM POLICE IN CR.NO. 61/12. ANNEXURE 2- POLICE CHARGE IN CRIME NO. 61/2012 OF VALAYAM POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE 3- SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL ----------------------------------------- NS / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2657 of 2013 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 1[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 in C.C.No.599 of 2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nadapuram which is a case instituted upon the police report [in Crime No.61 of 2012 of Valayam Police Station] for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 323, 427 r/w 149 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure-II Police Charge and all further proceedings in C.C.No.599 of 2012 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nadapuram as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation against the accused in Crime No.61/2012 of Valayam police station is that the accused persons formed into an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common intention trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant who is the respondent No.1 herein and assaulted her and the door of the house damaged by hitting with an iron rode and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147,148, 448, 323, 427 read 2 Crl.M.C.No.2657 of 2013 with 149 of Indian Penal Code. Now the case of the petitioners is that the matter is settled out of court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the first 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 matter is settled amicably between the parties to the dispute which is the subject matter of the above crime/case. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above case/crime is abuse of process of law and proceedings. 5. The learned counsel for the first 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 she 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. 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 3 Crl.M.C.No.2657 of 2013 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 Sections 143, 147,148, 448, 323, 427 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code 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 first respondent, it appears to me that the the de facto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioner/s 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_ 4 Crl.M.C.No.2657 of 2013 _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 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 5 Crl.M.C.No.2657 of 2013 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 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 -II Police Charge and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.599 of 2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nadapuram and all further proceedings thereto. **V.K.MOHANAN Judge** mns/ Crl.M.C.No.2657 of 2013 6