Haris and others v. Faisal and State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2013/17TH ASHADHA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2676 of 2013 ()** **------------------------------------CC 712/2012 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, NADAPURAM. CRIME NO. 60/2012 OF VALAYAM POLICE STATION , KOZHIKODE** **.......** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS 1 TO 17:** **----------------------------------------------------------** **1. HARIS, S/O.AMMAD, AGED 23 YEARS CHAMALIYIL HOUSE, PARAKKADAVU AMSOM, CHEKKIYAD DESOM VATAKARA TALUK.** **2. ISMAIL, S/O.AMMAD, AGED 42 YEARS CHAMALIYIL HOUSE, PARAKKADAVU AMSOM, CHEKKIYAD DESOM VATAKARA TALUK.** **3. YAKKOB, S/O.AMMAD, AGED 38 YEARS CHAMALIYIL HOUSE, PARAKKADAVU AMSOM, CHEKKIYAD DESOM VATAKARA TALUK.** **4. ABDULLA, S/O.AMMAD, AGED 33 YEARS CHAMALIYIL HOUSE, PARAKKADAVU AMSOM, CHEKKIYAD DESOM VATAKARA TALUK.** **5. RAFEEK, S/O.AMMAD, AGED 30 YEARS CHAMALIYIL HOUSE, PARAKKADAVU AMSOM, CHEKKIYAD DESOM VATAKARA TALUK.** **6. MASHOOD, S/O.AMMAD, AGED 26 YEARS CHAMALIYIL HOUSE, PARAKKADAVU AMSOM, CHEKKIYAD DESOM VATAKARA TALUK.** **7. HARIS, S/O.MAMMU, AGED 33 YEARS PARAMBATH HOUSE, PARAKKADAVU AMSOM, CHEKKIYAD DESOM VATAKARA TALUK.** **8. ANAS, S/O.KUNHAMMAD, AGED 25 YEARS EERACHINTAVIDA HOUS, PARAKKADAVU AMSOM CHEKKIYAD DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK.** **9. SHOUKATH, S/O.ABDULLA, AGED 34 YEARS MAKKOOL HOUSE, PARAKKADAVU AMSOM, CHEKKIYAD DESOM VATAKARA TALUK.** **tss** ## **CRMC. NO.2676/2013** **10. MUHAMMAD, S/O.KUNHBULLA, AGED 23 YEARS PALLIKKAL HOUSE, PARAKKADAVU AMSOM, CHEKKIYAD DESOM VATAKARA TALUK.** **11. MANIYAM, D/O.AMMAD, AGED 35 YEARS PALLIKKAL HOUSE, PARAKKADAVU AMSOM, CHEKKIYAD DESOM VATAKARA TALUK.** **12. SAEED, S/O. ISMAIL, AGED 22 YEARS KUVVATHIDAYIL HOUSE, PARAKKADAVU AMSOM, CHEKKIYAD DESOM VATAKARA TALUK.** **13. JABIR, S/O.ABDULLA, AGED 21 YEARS KANDEENTAVIDA HOUSE, PARAKKADAVU AMSOM CHEKKIYAD DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK.** **14. AMMAD, S/O.ABDULLA, AGED 62 YEARS CHAMALIYIL HOUSE, PARAKKADAVU AMSOM, CHEKKIYAD DESOM VATAKARA TALUK.** **15. ASIYA, W/O.KHADER, AGED 32 YEARS CHAMALIYIL HOUSE, PARAKKADAVU AMSOM, CHEKKIYAD DESOM VATAKARA TALUK.** **16. JAMEELA, D/O.AMMAD, AGED 38 YEARS CHAMALIYIL HOUSE, PARAKKADAVU AMSOM, CHEKKIYAD DESOM VATAKARA TALUK.** **17. SALAM, S/O.AMMAD, AGED 21 YEARS PALLIARAM VEETTIL HOUSE, PARAKKADAVU AMSOM CHEKKIYAD DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:** **---------------------------------------------** ## **1. FAISAL, S/O.ABDULRAHMN, AGED 28 YEARS PALLIPARAMBATH HOUSE, MUDAVANTHERI, THUNERI VATAKARA TALUK-0 673 101.** ## **2. STATE OF KERALA,** - **REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,** - **HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKLULAM- 682 031.** **R1 BY ADV. SMT.P.A.ANEESHA R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **tss** **Crl.MC.No. 2676 of 2013 () -------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES** **-----------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE 1: F.I.STATEMENT OF IST RESPONDENT GIVEN TO VALAYAM POLICE IN CRIME NO.60/2012.** **ANNEXURE 2: POLICE CHARGE IN CRIME NO.60/2012 OF VALAYAM POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE 3: SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF 1ST RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **---------------------------------------** **NIL** ## **TRUE COPY** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **tss** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** **---------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No. 2676 of 2013 ----------------------------------------** Dated this the 8[th] 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 Nos. 1 to 17 in C.C.No.712 of 2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nadapuram, which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No. 60 of 2013 of Valayam Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143,147,148,341,323,324 read with 149 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure-II Police Charge and all further proceedings in C.C.No.712/12 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nadapuram against the petitioners as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that on 22.2.2012, the accused persons in furtherance of the common intention assembled unlawfully and attacked and assaulted the defacto complianant at Crl.M.C.No.2676 of 2013 :-2-: different places and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 143,147,148,341,323,324 read with 149 of I.P.C. and 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 case. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above case 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 he has no grievance against them. Crl.M.C.No.2676 of 2013 :-3-: 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 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 143,147,148,341,323,324 read with 149 of I.P.C. 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 de facto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioners/accused Crl.M.C.No.2676 of 2013 :-4-: 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 v. **Gian Singh State of Punjab** [2012(4) KLT 108(SC)], in which 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 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-_ Crl.M.C.No.2676 of 2013 :-5-: _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........”_ 8. 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. Thus, I am of the view that 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 Crl.M.C.No.2676 of 2013 :-6-: 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 in C.C.No.712/12 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nadapuram against the petitioners. **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** MBS/ ## Crl.M.C.No.2676 of 2013 :-7-: