Jubair and others v. State of Kerala and Asya d/o Ismail

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA** **MONDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 15TH BHADRA, 1943** ## **CRL.MC NO. 3298 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4** 1 JUBAIR AGED 36 YEARS S/O. ALIKUTTY, CHENAKKAL HOUSE, THENNALA P.O., POOKIPARAMBA, TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 2 ALIKUTTY, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O. AHAMMED HAJI, CHENAKKAL HOUSE, THENNALA P.O., POOKIPARAMBA, TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 3 NAFISA, AGED 57 YEARS, D/O. ALIKUTTY, CHENAKKKAL HOUSE, THENNALA P.O., POOKIPARAMBA, TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 4 SUNNERA, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O. BASHEER, CHERUKATTIL HOUSE, CHAPPANANGADI P.O., VATTAPARAMB, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT BY ADVS. P.T.SHEEJISH P.K.PURUSH HARIKIRAN JASHITHA VIJAYAN STEPHY GRACE RAJ A.ABDUL RAHMAN (A-1917) AKHILA SRIDHARAN P.SREELAKSHMI ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DE FACTO COMPLAINANT** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 031 2 ASYA D/O. ISMAIL, CHAPPANGATHIL HOUSE, THRIKKULAM, P.O.PANTHARANGADI, PALLIPADI, PALATHINGAL, TIRURNAGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 306 BY ADV AJOY VENU 2 Crl.M.C.3298 of 2021 ## **OTHER PRESENT:** PP SEENA.C THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.3298 of 2021 3 ## **ORDER** ## Dated : 6[th] September, 2021 1. This Crl.M.C has been filed to quash Crime No.161/2019 of Tirurangadi police station which has been registered for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 406 r/w 34 IPC. Petitioners are accused 1 to 4 in the above crime. 2. The prosecution case is that the 1[st] petitioner, husband of the de facto complainant and other accused in furtherance of their common intention subjected the de facto complainant to cruelty and grabbed her valuables thereby committed the offence aforementioned. 3. When the case came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the dispute between the petitioners and the de facto complainant had been amicably settled and she has no grievance against the petitioners and she also does not want to proceed further with the case against the petitioners. Annexure-A3 is the affidavit duly sworn in by the de facto complainant wherein she categorically stated about the Crl.M.C.3298 of 2021 4 settlement arrived at between the parties and further that the FIS was happened to be lodged due to some misunderstanding and on a mistake of facts. Due to intervention of the mediators, the matter has been discussed and she decided to settle all the disputes. She has also no objection in quashing the proceedings against the petitioners. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the statement of the de facto complainant was taken and she admitted the averments in the affidavit and further that the matter has been settled with the petitioners. In the said circumstances, continuance of the proceedings against the petitioners would be an abuse of process of law and it would be a waste of time. 5. In **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another (2012 (10) SCC** **303 : 2012 KHC 4530)** a three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has held that criminal cases having civil flavour and arising from criminal financial merchantile, civil, partnership, matrimony relating to dowry or family disputes where wrong is private or personal in nature can be quashed in view of Crl.M.C.3298 of 2021 5 the settlement between the parties. Paragraph 57 of the said decision is relevant in this context to be extracted which reads as follows :- “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 Section 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. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings Crl.M.C.3298 of 2021 6 involving such offences. 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 other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 6. In the said circumstances it appears that the entire dispute between the parties have been resolved. No public interest is Crl.M.C.3298 of 2021 7 involved and the issue is purely private in nature. So there is no impediment in quashing the proceedings against the petitioners and further continuance of the proceedings against the petitioners also will not serve any purpose. 7. In the result, Crl.M.C. allowed. The entire proceedings in Crime NO.161/2019 of Tirurangadi police station is hereby quashed. Sd/- ## **M.R.Anitha, Judge** Mrcs/6.9. Crl.M.C.3298 of 2021 8 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3298/2021** PETITIONER ANNEXURE Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR AND FIS COMPLAINT IN CRIME NO.161/2019 OF TIRURANGADI POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT Annexure A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.161/2019 ALONG WITH THE MEMORANDUM OF EVIDENCE FILED BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PARAPPANANGADI Annexure A3 THE AFFIDAVIT SOLEMNLY AFFIRMED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT DATED 23.07.2021