Fathima @ Ayisha and Cholapparamban Rasiya @ Rasheeda v State of Kerala, Sumayya and Mubasher

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/26TH MAGHA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 8585 of 2016 () ---------------------------** **SC 100/2016 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, MANJERI CRIME NO. 1089/2015 OF PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM** ## **PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:** ## **------------------------** **1. FATHIMA @ AYISHA,AGED 50 YEARS, D/O.MOIYIN,RESIDING AT CHOLAPRAMBHAN HOUSE, PULLURKKODE,ARAKKUPARAMBU.P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676504.** **2. CHOLAPARAMBAN RASIYA @ RASHEEDA, AGED 35 YEARS,W/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, RESIDING AT CHOLAPARAMBAN HOUSE,** **PULLURKKODE,ARAKKUPARAMBU.P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676504.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.NIRMAL V NAIR** **RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,COCHIN-682011.** **2. SUMAYYA,AGED 32 YEARS, W/O.MUHAMMEDALI,RESIDING AT MUTHUVATTARA HOUSE, PULLARIKKODE,ARKKUPARAMBU.P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **3. MUBASHEER,AGED 15 YEARS,** **S/O.MUHAMMEDALI, MINOR REPRESENTED BY MOTHER SUMMAYYA,W/O.MUHAMMEDALI, RESIDING AT MUTHUVATTARA HOUSE, PULLARIKKODE,ARKKUPARAMBU.P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **RI BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. E.C. BINEESH R2&3 BY ADV. SRI.SURAJ.S** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **EL** **Crl.MC.No. 8585 of 2016 () ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS -----------------------** **ANNEXURE A COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.1089 OF 2015 OF THE PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION ANNEXURE B COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.1089 OF 2015 OF THE PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION ANNEXURE C AFFIDAVIT FILED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS -----------------------** **NIL** **TRUE COPY** **EL** **P.S. TO JUDGE** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## Crl.M.C. No. 8585 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15[th] day of February, 2017 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **O R D E R** ## **~~~~~~~** - 1.This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( 'the Code” for brevity ) with a prayer to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioners. - 2.On the basis of an FIR lodged by the 2[nd] respondent herein, who is the mother of the 3[rd] respondent, Crime No.1089 of 2015 of the Perinthalmanna Police Station was registered against the petitioners herein and investigation was taken up for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and on its completion final report was laid before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The case was committed to the Court of Session and the same is pending as S.C.No.100 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Crl.M.C. No.8585 of 2016 -2- Manjeri. - 3.Prosecution allegation is that on 22.8.2015 at 7.15 a.m., the petitioners herein trespassed into the house of the 2[nd] respondent and assaulted her as well as her son causing hurt. - 4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as respondents 2 and 3. 5.It is submitted by the learned counsel that on the basis of the information furnished by the 1[st] petitioner herein Crime No.1088 of 2015 of Perinthalmanna Police Station has been registered against the husband and a relative of the 2[nd] respondent. It is submitted that both these matters have been settled at the instance of mediators and well wishers and the parties are living in peace and harmony. Reference is made to the joint affidavit sworn to by the party respondents to bring home the point that Crl.M.C. No.8585 of 2016 -3- they have no further grievance against the petitioners. 6.The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions expresses his reservations in the matter. However, it is submitted that the petitioners are not persons with criminal antecedents . - 7.I have considered the submissions . 8.The position with regard to quashing of proceedings on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties is by now well settled. 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. It was observed as follows : _“61. 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 proceedings or_ Crl.M.C. No.8585 of 2016 -4- _continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”_ 9.The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in **Narinder singh v. State of Punjab. (2014) 6 SCC** **466,** the pertinent observations which are as under: _xxxxx xxxx xxxx_ _29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:_ _(i) ends of justice, or_ _(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives._ Crl.M.C. No.8585 of 2016 -5- _xxxxx xxxx xxxx_ 10.The offence committed by the petitioners cannot be said to be grave and serious having ingredients of extreme mental depravity. It also does not appear that the offence in this case will have a serious impact on the society. It is felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and secure the ends of justice. Even otherwise, persisting with the prosecution would be nothing but a waste of time as the prospects of conviction would be bleak. 11.Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court will be well justified in invoking its extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings. In the result, this petition will stand allowed. AnnexureB final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against Crl.M.C. No.8585 of 2016 -6- the petitioners now pending as S.C.No.100 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-I Manjeri are quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE** ps/16/2/2017