IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** ## **MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/21ST SRAVANA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3302 of 2013 ()** **--------------------------CC.NO. 673/2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT ,KASARAGOD CRIME NO. 211/2006 OF KUMBALA POLICE STATION , KASARAGOD ----------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED :** **-------------------------------------** **S.H. ABDUL SALAM,AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.HAMSA, RESIDING AT ABDUL SALAM MANZIL,P.O.SHIRIYA, KUMBALA(VIA), KASARAGOD TALUK & DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:** **-----------------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-682 031** **2. MAHALINGESHWARA SHARMA, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.KESHAVA BHAT, RESIDING AT 'KEDARA',** - **NARAYANAMANGALAM, KUMBALA, KOIPADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK & DISTRICT-671 321.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S.HYMA R2 BY ADV. SRI.HANSON.P.MATHEW** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** **CRMC.NO.3302/2013** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:** **ANNEX A COPY OF THE FINAL CHARGE SUBMITTED BY THE POLICE. ANNEX B COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CC.NO.565/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-1, KASARAGOD ANNEX C COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11/07/2013** ## **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL** ## **/TRUE COPY/** ## **P.A.TO.JUDGE** **sts** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.3302 of 2013 ------------------------------Dated this the 12[th] day of August, 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 petitioner, who is the 5[th] accused in C.C.No.673/2013 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kasaragod, which is a case instituted upon the police report [in Crime No.211/06 of Kumbala Police Station] for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 294(b), 506(1) r/w 149 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in the above calendar case, as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that on 21.7.2006 at 10 a.m. the accused person in furtherance of their common object of committing riot, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and entered into the Plus one **Crl.M.C.No.3302 of 2013** 2 class room at Shiriya Government Higher Secondary School, Mangalpady, uttered obscene words to the students and thereby committed ragging. The further charge is that the accused persons criminally intimidated the de facto complainant by saying that his leg will be cut. So the accused persons are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 294(b), 506(1) read with 149 of IPC and Section 4 of Ragging Prohibition Act. Now, the case of the petitioner is that the matter is settled out of court, with the de facto complainant who is the 2[nd] respondent herein, who sworn into Annexure C affidavit. It is also the case of the petitioner that the other accused in the very same crime had faced the prosecution and they are acquitted as per Annexure B judgment as the de facto complainant deposed before the trial court that the matter was settled. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the 2[nd] respondent. I have also heard the learned **Crl.M.C.No.3302 of 2013** 3 Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner 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 petitioner and he has no grievance against him. 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 **Crl.M.C.No.3302 of 2013** 4 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 143, 147, 294(b), 506(1) r/w 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 2[nd] respondent, it appears to me that the de facto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioner/accused 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 **Gian Singh** v. **State of Punjab** [2012(4) KLT 108(SC)]. In Gian Singh's case, the Supreme Court has held as **Crl.M.C.No.3302 of 2013** 5 ## 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, 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 **Crl.M.C.No.3302 of 2013** 6 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. 7 ## **Crl.M.C.No.3302 of 2013** In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing all further proceedings pending against the petitioner in C.C.No.673/2013 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kasaragod, in Crime No.211/06 of Kumbala Police Station. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** ami/ //True copy// P.A. to Judge