Iha Khan and Vinod v. State of Kerala and Basheer

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2013/31ST JYAISHTA 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2528 of 2013 ()** ## **--------------------------CC.NO. 847/2008 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I,ATTINGAL** **-------------------------------------------------------** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO 2 & 3:** **-----------------------------------------------------** **1. IHA KHAN, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.KAMALUDEEN, KHAN NIVAS, THOTTAKKATTU DESOM, MANAMBOOR VILLAGE.** **2. VINOD, AGED 25 YEARS,S/O.RAVEENDRAN, SANTHOSH BHAVAN, THOTTAKKATTU DESOM.** **BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV** **SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE:** **---------------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM -682 031 (CRIME NO. 358/08 OF ATTINGAL POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT)** **2. BASHEER,AGED 47 YEARS,** - **S/O.ABDUL MAJEED, MES BUILDING, PALLIMUKKU, ALAMCODE P.O, ALAMCODE VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA R2 BY ADV. SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** **Crl.MC.No. 2528 of 2013 () ----------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES: ---------------------------------------------ANNEX 1 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 358/2008 OF ATTINGAL POLICE STATION, NOW PENDING AS CC NO. 847/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-1 ATTINGAL ANNEX 11 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 13-06-2013 RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL** ## **/TRUE COPY/** ## **P.A.TO.JUDGE** **sts** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **---------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.2528 of 2013** ## **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 21[st] day of June, 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.2 and 3 in C.C.No.847/2008 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal, which is a case instituted upon the police report [in Crime No. 358 of 2008 of Attingal Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 427, 326 r/w 34 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash all further proceedings in the above C.C., as against the petitioners, as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 5.6.2008 at about 1.30 p.m., the accused nos.1 to 3 while supplying Biriyani in a marriage feast, the de facto complainant had questioned the accused for shortage of masala in Biriyani and due to that enmity, the accused attacked the de facto 2 ## **Crl.M.C.No.2528 of 2013** complainant and thereby they sustained injuries and thus committed the offences punishable under section 323, 326, 427 r/w 34 of IPC. 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 2[nd] 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 2[nd] 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. 3 **Crl.M.C.No.2528 of 2013** 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 under sections 323, 326, 427 r/w section 34 of IPC, 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 2[nd] respondent, it appears to me that the de facto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioners/accused in the light of the 4 ## **Crl.M.C.No.2528 of 2013** 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 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, 5 **Crl.M.C.No.2528 of 2013** 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 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. 6 ## **Crl.M.C.No.2528 of 2013** In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No. 847 of 2008 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** ami/ //True copy// P.A. to Judge