Fasin and Ubaid Muhammed v. State of Kerala and Mohammed Kani (CW1)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2016/2ND JYAISHTA, 1938** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2754 of 2016 ()** ## **-------------------------CRIME NO. 839/2011 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA ----------------------** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 & 2 :** **---------------------------------------------------** **1. FASIN AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED NOOHA, RESIDING AT KOIKKALATHU HOUSE, VANANJUZHI MURI & PATHANAMTHITTA VILLAGE & KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.** **2. UBAID MUHAMMED @ FAISAL AGED 28 YEARS, MUHAMMED HANEEFA, NARAKTHANIL HOUSE, ANCHAKKALA, VETTIPPURAM MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA VILLAGE & KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT/STATE :** **-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **MOHAMMED KANI AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. RAHMATHULLA, RESIDING AT THYKKAVIL PUTHEN VEEDU, VETTIPPURAM MURI & PATHANAMTHITTA VILLAGE & KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT PIN – 689645 (CW1-DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT).** ## **BY ADVS. SRI.M.AYYOOBUKHAN** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Mn** **...2/-** **Crl.MC.No. 2754 of 2016 () -------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :** **----------------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC NO. 102/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE C.J.M., PATHANAMTHITTA.** **ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 03.6.2015 IN CC** **NO. 102/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE C.J.M., PATHANAMTHITTA.** **ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES : NIL** **-------------------------------------------------------------** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **Mn** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J. ================== Crl.M.C.No. 2754 of 2016 ==================** Dated this the 23[rd] day of May, 2016 ## **O R D E R** This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) seeking invocation of powers of this court to quash pending Criminal Proceedings . 2. Crime No. 839 of 2011 was registered by the Pathanamthitta Police Station against the petitioners herein and 6 others under Sections 143,147,148,341,324,326,506(ii) read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of a statement furnished by the first respondent herein. 3. After completion of the investigation , the police submitted the final report before the jurisdictional Magistrate and case was taken cognizance of as C.C No. 52 of 2012. 4. The petitioners did not appear before the court below and the case against the accused No 1 to 4 , 6 and 8 were proceeded with. As per Annexure-2 judgment **Crl.M.C.No. 2754 of 2016** **2** dated 03.06.2015, they were acquitted of all charges under Section 248 (1) of the Code. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that a perusal of the judgment produced as Annexure-2 would reveal that none of the prosecution witnesses had supported the prosecution case. It is further submitted that the learned Magistrate had taken note of the fact that the case was settled inter se between the parties. According to the learned counsel, the substratum of the case has been destroyed and no purpose will be served in ordering the petitioners to face the trial. 6. It is further submitted that after the passing of Annexure-2 judgment, parties have decided to resolve the disputes and to live in harmony. 7. The first respondent has entered appearance through counsel and it is submitted that the disputes have been amicably settled with the avowed objective to maintain peace and harmony between the parties. The ## **Crl.M.C.No. 2754 of 2016** **3** first respondent has also sworn to an affidavit before court wherein it has been emphatically stated that his grievance does not subsist any more and also that he does not intend to pursue the prosecution proceedings against the petitioners herein. 8. The learned public prosecutor on instructions submitted that the state has no objection in acting on Annexure-3 affidavit as it would promote peace and harmony. It is also submitted that the petitioners are not persons with any criminal antecedents . 9. It is thus borne out from the submissions made at the bar that the parties have amicably settled their disputes with their free will and without any kind of pressure, influence or coercion. The compromise , it is felt , is voluntarily and genuine and can be acted upon. Further in **Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police (2006 (1) KLT 552)** and also **Ashraf Kancheriyil v. State of Kerala (2011 (2) KHC 812)** it has been held that when substratum of the case is destroyed, there is no point in ## **Crl.M.C.No. 2754 of 2016** **4** pursuing with the prosecution as against the other accused. 10. The law with regard to the settlement of criminal disputes on the strength of an amicable resolution of the disputes between the parties is no more res integra. 11. **In Gian singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303),** Apex Court has laid down that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. This view was reiterated in **Narinder singh v. State of Punjab. (2014) 6 SCC 466) and Yogendra Yadav and Others V State of Jharkhand and Another 2014 (9) SCC 653 .** 12. It was held that the 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 **5** ## **Crl.M.C.No. 2754 of 2016** prevent abuse of the process of any Court. It was held that certain categories of cases involving heinous and serious offences of 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 as those offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. But those cases where the wrong is basically private or personnel in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute could be fittingly be quashed by this court taking into account the compromise between the offender and victim. In such cases the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused and the _de facto_ complainant to great oppression and prejudice 13. After having anxiously considered the submissions it is felt that it would be unfair and contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding . It would only tantamount to abuse of process **6** ## **Crl.M.C.No. 2754 of 2016** of law to subject the parties to the ordeal of a protracted criminal proceeding despite the settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer. Settlement will augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony. Further the acquittal of the other accused in the crime on the basis of Annexure-2 judgement persuades this court to consider the application favorably. Consequently, all further proceedings in C.C No. 102 of 2015 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta which has arisen from Crime No. 839 of 2011 of Pathanamthitta Police Station shall stand quashed. ## Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, Judge** lsn