K.T. Sidheegeque, Sharafudheen and Raoof C. v. Shammas P.P., Rukhiya P.P. and The State of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/23RD SRAVANA, 1936 Crl.MC.No. 4418 of 2014 (A) ----------------------------------------AGAINST THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC 209/2014 of J.M.F.C.-II, KANNUR CRIME NO. 417/2013 OF MAYYIL POLICE STATION, KANNUR PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1-3: - -------------------------------------------- 1. K.T.SIDHEEQUE, S/O.ABDULLA HAJI, SAFEERAS, NARATH, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. SHARAFUDHEEN, S/O.K.T.SIDHEEQUE, SAFEERAS, NARATH, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. RAOOF C., S/O.MAHINKUTTY, AL JAMAL, NARATH, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND STATE: - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SHAMMAS P.P., S/O.K.T.SIDHEEQUE, AL-SHARIF, NARATH, KANNUR-670603. 2. RUKHIYA P.P., W/O.K.T.SIDHEEQUE, AL-SHARIF, NARATH, KANNUR-670603. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031. R1, R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.H.ABDUL RASAK R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. BINDU GOPINATH THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 4418 of 2014 (A) --------------------------------------- ## **APPENDIX** ## PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES : - -------------------------------------------- ANNEXURE I : TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.417/2013. ANNEXURE 2 : TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 28-3-2014. ANNEXURE 3 : TRUE COPY OF THE PAYMENT RECEIPT. ANNEXURE 4 : TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY 1[st] RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE 5 : TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY 2[nd] RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES : - NIL. -------------------------------------------- // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE DMR/- ## **V.K. MOHANAN,J.** --------------------------------------- ## **Crl. M.C. No. 4418 of 2014** ---------------------------------------Dated this the 14[th] day of August, 2014 ## ORDER 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. 1 to 3 in C.C.No. 209 of 2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kannur, which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No. 417/2013 of Mayyil Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 294(b), 506(1), 452 and 427 read with 34 I.P.C with a prayer to call for the records in CC 209/2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kannur and quash all the proceedings against the petitioners as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that on 26.04.2013 at 6 p.m. when the 1[st] respondent was proceeding to the mosque, the 1[st] petitioner restrained him Crl. M.C. No. 4418 of 2014 2 on the road due to the enmity on account of the dispute about the ownership of the house, beaten him on his face and head, thereafter when the 1[st] respondent proceeded to his house, the petitioners 2 and 3 trespassed into their house and the 2[nd] petitioner restrained the 1[st] respondent and the 3[rd] petitioner beaten him with his hand, seeing this when the 2[nd] respondent came to the scene and attempted to stop the petitioners, the 3[rd] petitioner caught hold of her neck and beaten her and threatened the 1[st] respondent that his leg will be cut and abused him in filthy language and also broken the glass of the window of their house and 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 learned counsel for the first and second respondents. 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 Crl. M.C. No. 4418 of 2014 3 process of law and proceedings. 5. The learned counsel for the first and second respondents, who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondents, submitted that the above respondents, who are the de facto complainants does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioners and they have no grievance against them. 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 341, 323, 294(b), 506(1), 452 and 427 read with 34 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 Crl. M.C. No. 4418 of 2014 4 Court after having amicably settled the matter. From the submission made by the counsel for the first and second respondents, it appears to me that the de facto complainants has no further grievance against the petitioners/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 which 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,mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising Crl. M.C. No. 4418 of 2014 5 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........” 8. 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. Thus, I am of the view that 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 Crl. M.C. No. 4418 of 2014 6 relief as sought for. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing all the proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No. 209/2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kannur, in Crime No. 417/2013 of Mayyil Police Station. **V.K. MOHANAN JUDGE** DMR/-