JAVAD v. STATE OF KERALA & SAINABA K.K.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/13TH KARTHIKA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 6187 of 2014** **----------------------------------** ## **CRIME NO. 609/2014 OF THAMARASSERY POLICE STATION , KOZHIKODE** **----------------** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:** **-------------------------------------** **JAVAD, AGED 22 YEARS, SAIDALAVI, KARIMBILOTTUKUNDA HOUSE, VETTIYOZHINHATHOTTAM, KATTIPPARA.P.O., THAMARASSERY KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.LUIZ GODWIN DCOUTH** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** **--------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA** **REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THAMARASSERY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** ## **2. SAINABA K.K, AGED 38 YEARS** **W/O.HANEEFA, KARRIMBILOTTUKUNDA VEEDU VETTIYOZHINHATHOTTAM, KATTIPARA.P.O. KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 673 001.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GITHESH R2 BY ADV. SRI.JOSE KURIAKOSE (VILANGATTIL)** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-11-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **PJ** ## **Crl.MC.No. 6187 of 2014** **-----------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES** **-----------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE A- THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.609/2014 REGISTERED BY THE THAMARASSERY POLICE AGAINST THE PETITIONER.** **ANNEXURE B- THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES -------------------------------------------** **NIL.** **/ TRUE COPY /** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **PJ** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ----------------------------Crl.M.C.No.6187 Of 2014 --------------------------------Dated this the 4[th] day of November, 2014.** ## **O R D E R** The petitioner herein is the sole accused in Crime No.609/2014 of Thamarassery Police Station alleging commission of offence punishable under Secs.451, 341 & 354 IPC. Annexure-A is the impugned FIR in in the impugned Crime No.609/2014 of Thamarassery Police Station. The prosecution allegation is that the accused on 15.8.2014 at 4:00 p.m. had trespassed into the house of the 2[nd] respondent (defacto complainant) and attempted to outrage the modesty of the 2[nd] respondent while she was doing work in the kitchen. Thereafter, the 2[nd] respondent filed complaint before the Thamarassery Police Station against the petitioner and on the basis of the first information statement of the 2[nd] respondent, police registered the above said crime No.609/2014 against the petitioner for the above said offences. It is stated that now the disputes between the parties have been amicably settled and that the 2[nd] respondent is not interested to continue the criminal proceedings. The 2[nd] respondent-defacto ::2:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.6187 Of 2014** complainant has filed affidavit dated 18.10.2014 produced as Annexure-B in this Crl.M.C stating the above aspects and further stating that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and the impugned criminal proceedings may be quashed. It is in the light of the facts and circumstances, the instant Crl.M.C has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned Annexure-A FIR in Crime No.609/2014 of Thamarassery Police Station and all further proceedings arising therefrom on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thamarassery in the interest of justice. 2. The Crl.M.C has been admitted and Sri.Jose Kuriakose, Advocate, has taken notice for the 2[nd] respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor has taken notice for the 1[st] respondent-State of Kerala. 3. Heard Sri.Luiz Godwin D'Couth, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Jose Kuriakose, learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1[st] respondent. ::3:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.6187 Of 2014** 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the pendency of the aforementioned criminal proceedings, the matter has been settled amicably between the parties, and that the continuation of the proceedings in the above case/crime will cause miscarriage of justice to both parties as the real disputants to the controversy have arrived at an amicable settlement and any further continuation of the criminal proceedings will amount to sheer wastage of time and money and would unnecessarily strain the judicial, administrative and financial resources of the State. 5. Sri.Jose Kuriakose, learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent has submitted on the basis of the specific instructions furnished by the 2[nd] respondent that the 2[nd] respondent has amicably settled the disputes with the petitioner and that he has no objection in the quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings and that the complainant/victim/injured does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioner as he has no grievance against him and that they will not raise any dispute/complaint in future if the prayer for quashing the impugned final report is allowed. ::4:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.6187 Of 2014** 6. The learned Public Prosecutor also was heard and submitted that this Court may consider the prayer in this case in the light of the law well settled by the Apex Court in that regard. 7. After having carefully considered the submissions of the parties and after having perused the pleadings as well as the documents and materials placed in this matter, it can be seen that the offences alleged are more or less personal in nature. The crucial aspect of the matter is that though such offences are involved, the real disputants to the controversy, which has led to the impugned criminal proceedings, have actually arrived at an amicable settlement of the matter. From the submissions made by the learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent, it is clear to the Court that the injured/victim/defacto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioner/accused in the light of the settlement arrived at by them. 8. In this connection, it is relevant to note the decision of the Apex Court in the case between _**Gian Singh** v._ _**State of Punjab**_ reported in 2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 160, para 61 = (2012) ::5:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.6187 Of 2014** 10 SCC 303 = 2012(4) KLT 108(SC), wherein the Supreme Court has held as follows in para 61 thereof [ See SCC (Cri)]: _“61. 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, mercantile, 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........”_ In the decision reported in the case _**Yogendra Yadav & others**_ _**v. The State of Jharkhand & another**_ reported in 2014 (8) Scale 634 = III (2014) Current Criminal Reports CCR 426 (SC), the Apex Court has held as follows: ::6:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.6187 Of 2014** _“When the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and, therefore, do not affect public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them”._ The Apex Court in the above case was dealing with a case involving offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 504 & 307 r/w Section 34 Indian Penal Code. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it is seen further that the impugned criminal proceedings have arisen consequent to the personal disputes between the disputants and the disputes have been settled amicably between the parties. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to hold that in the light of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and particularly in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the principles laid down in the aforementioned decisions of the Apex Court will be squarely applicable in the present case. Moreover, since the real disputants to the controversy have amicably settled the disputes, which led to these impugned criminal proceedings, it is also the duty of the court to promote such settlement, instead of compelling the parties to go on with the dispute. It ::7:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.6187 Of 2014** is also pertinent to note that since the matter is settled out of court, in the event of proceeding with the trial, there may not be any fruitful prosecution and the chances of conviction of the accused is rather negligible and therefore, the net result of continuance of criminal proceedings would be sheer waste of judicial time rather meaningless and therefore would amount to abuse of the process of court proceedings in the larger sense. Hence following decisions of the Apex Court cited supra, this Court is inclined to hold that the Crl.M.C. can be allowed by granting the prayers sought for. In the result, Crl.M.C is allowed and the impugned Annexure-A FIR in Crime No.609/2014 of Thamarassery Police Station which is now pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thamarassery and all further proceedings arising therefrom stand quashed. The petitioner shall produce certified copies of this order before the Station House Officer concerned as well as before the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned. **ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.** bkn/-