Imtiaz Aziz v. Varghese Bastian and State of Kerala

# _`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`_ ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH MONDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 7853 OF 2022 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTCC 648/2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,KATTAKADA ``` ## _`PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:`_ ``` IMTIAZ AZIZ AGED 46 YEARS HOUSE NO. 540, KAIRALI, PRASANTH NAGAR, ULOOR, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , PIN - 695011, PRESENTLY RESISDING AT PARK AVENUE, HOUSE NO. 49, SANTHOSH NAGAR, MUTTADA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695025 ``` ``` BY ADVS. SHAIJAN C.GEORGE VINAI JOHN NEEBA A.B. ``` ## _`RESPONDENTS:`_ ``` 1VARGHESE BASTIAN AGED 52 YEARS S/O BASTIAN PRIYAM, NEAR CSI CHURCH, KAKKULAM, THIRUNELLIYOOR LANE, KUNDAMAN BHAGAM , PEYAD P.O, PIN - 695573 ``` ``` 2STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ``` BY ADV BENNY JOSEPH ``` ``` Crl.M.C.No. 7853 of 2022 ``` ``` -:2:- ``` ``` OTHER PRESENT: ``` **==> picture [145 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` Crl.M.C.No. 7853 of 2022 ``` ``` -:3:- ``` ## **O R D E R** Dated this the 19[th] day of December, 2022 This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-1 private complaint in C.C.No. 648/2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kattakkada, on the ground of settlement between the parties. 2. Altogether there are four accused. The petitioner is the accused No.2. The 1[st] respondent is the de facto complainant. 3. The offences alleged against the accused are punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 323, 354 and 294(b) r/w Section 34 of the IPC. 4. The respondent No.2 entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn in by the defacto complainant is produced **.** 5. I have heard Sri. Shaijan C George, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Benny Joseph, the learned counsel for respondent No.1, Smt. and Sri. T.V. Neema, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 6. The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit ``` Crl.M.C.No. 7853 of 2022 ``` ``` -:4:- ``` sworn in by the 1[st] respondent would show that the entire dispute between the accused No.2 with the de facto complainant has been amicably settled and the de facto complainant has decided not to proceed with the crime against the accused No.2 any further. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instruction, submits that the matter was inquired into through the investigating officer, and a statement of the de facto complainant was also recorded wherein he reported that the dispute with the accused No.2 was amicably settled. 7. The Apex Court in _**Gian Singh v. State of Punjab**_ [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)], _**Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others**_ [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and _**State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others**_ [(2019) 5 SCC 688] has held that the High Court invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C can quash criminal proceedings in relation to non-compoundable offence where the parties have settled the matter between themselves notwithstanding the bar under S.320 of Cr.P.C. if it is warranted in the given facts and circumstances of the case or to ensure ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any ``` Crl.M.C.No. 7853 of 2022 ``` ``` -:5:- ``` Court. 8. It is true that the settlement was arrived at between the 1[st] respondent(de facto complainant) and the accused No.2 alone, who is the petitioner. No settlement was arrived at with the remaining accused. Hence, the question is whether the FIR/Final Report against some of the accused alone could be quashed on the ground of settlement invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C. The Apex Court _**in Lovely Salhotra and Another v. State NCT of Delhi and Another**_ [(2018) 12 SCC 391] quashed the proceedings against one of the accused alone, invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C. That was a case where the High Court refused to quash the proceeding holding that the FIR cannot be quashed in part. True, in the said case, the Apex Court had taken into account the facts of the case that no cognizable offence was made out. The Apex Court, on facts, also found that no offence was made out against the appellant/accused therein. However, the principle that could be deduced from the dictum laid down in the said decision is that it is not impermissible to quash the FIR qua some of the accused alone, depending on the facts and circumstances ``` Crl.M.C.No. 7853 of 2022 ``` ``` -:6:- ``` of each case. This Court in _**Sajeev & Another v. State of Kerala and Another**_ (2022 (3) KHC 69), has held that it is permissible to quash the proceedings against some of the accused alone on the ground of settlement depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. In these circumstances, I hold that it is permissible in law to quash the FIR or Final Report only against one or some of the accused on the ground of settlement, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C. 9. The learned counsel for the 1[st] respondent submitted that as the dispute between the petitioner and the 1[st] respondent is amicably settled, the 1[st] respondent has no objection whatsoever if the final report is quashed only against the petitioner. The dispute in the above case is purely personal in nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure-1 as against the petitioner. The offences in question do not fall within the category of offences prohibited for compounding in terms of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in _**Gian Singh**_ (supra), ``` Crl.M.C.No. 7853 of 2022 ``` ``` -:7:- ``` ## _**Narinder Singh**_ (supra) and _**Laxmi Narayan**_ (supra). For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that no purpose will be served in proceeding with the matter further. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-1 private complaint in C.C.No. 648/2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kattakkada, as against the petitioner/accused No.2 alone hereby stand quashed. Sd/- **DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE** mtk ``` Crl.M.C.No. 7853 of 2022 ``` ``` -:8:- ``` ## _`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7853/2022`_ ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ``` |_`Annexure1`_|_`A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN C.C.`_| |---|---| ||_`NO.648/2018 PENDING BEFORE THE JUDICIAL`_| ||_`FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,`_| ||_`KATTAKKADA.`_| |_`Annexure2`_|_`A TRUE COPY OF THE SWORN STATEMENT OF`_| ||_`THE 1ST RESPONDENT`_| |_`Annexure3`_|_`A TRUE COPY OF THE SWORN STATEMENT OF`_| ||_`THE ADDITIONAL WITNESS.`_| |_`Annexure4`_|_`A TRUE COPY OF THE SWORN STATEMENT OF`_| ||_`THE ADDITIONAL WITNESS.`_| |_`Annexure5`_|_`CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS`_| |_`Annexure6`_|_`A TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS IN C.C.`_| ||_`NO.648/2018 PENDING BEFORE THE JUDICIAL`_| ||_`FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KATTAKKADA`_| |_`Annexure7`_|_`TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED`_| ||_`04.09.2015`_| |_`Annexure8`_|_`TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED`_| ||_`04.09.2015`_| |_`Annexure9`_|_`A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED`_| ||_`01.10.2015`_| ``` Crl.M.C.No. 7853 of 2022 ``` ## `-:9:-` ``` Annexure10A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN C.C. NO. 195/2017 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT VII, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Annexure11A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN C.C. NO. 196/2017 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT VII, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Annexure12A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 05.08.2019 Annexure13A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED 20.09.2019 Annexure14THE AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT IN C.C. NO.648/2018 PENDING BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KATTAKKADA ON 17.10.2022 ```