Kunhalankutty, Siraj, Salam and Kunhammu alias Kunhimohammed v. State of Kerala and others

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. 3323 of 2013 () --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CP 23/2013 of J.F.C.M.,PARAPPANANGADI CRIME NO. 69/2013 OF TANUR POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1-4: ----------------------------------- 1. KUNHALANKUTTY, AGED 32 YEARS S/O MOIDEENKUTTY, APPADA HOUSE, ERANALLUR OZHUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 2. SIRAJ, AGED 24 YEARS S/O KUNHIMOHAMMED, APPADA HOUSE, ERANALLUR OZHUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 3. SALAM, AGED 32 YEARS S/O MOIDEEN, APPADA HOUSE, ERANALLUR OZHUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 4. KUNHAMMU@ KUNHIMOHAMMED, AGED 59 YEARS S/O KUNHALANKUTTY, APPADA HOUSE, ERANALLUR OZHUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS RESPONDETNS/ STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE TANUR POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 2. SAIDALAVI,, AGED 45 YEARS S/O AVARANKUTTY, APPADA HOUSE, ERANALLUR OZHUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676316 3. ASHIQUE, S/O KUINHIMOHAMMED, APPADA HOUSE, ERANALLUR OZHUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676316 R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAFEEK V.K. R2 & 3 BY ADV. SMT.LIJI KUTTAPPAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ma Crl.MC.No. 3323 of 2013 () --------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------ ANNEXURE 1: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO 69/2013 OF TANUR POLICE STATION ANNEXURE II: TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONERS FROM THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, PARAPPANANGADI IN CP NO 23/2013 ANNEXURE III: ORGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BYT THE 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS DATED 31-07-2013 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------ /TRUE COPY/ P.A TO JUDGE ma ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.3323 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 petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.69 of 2013 of Tanur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 308 r/w 34 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure-I FIR and all further proceedings against the petitioners in C.P.No.23 of 2013 in the above crime, as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that on 24.1.2013 at about 4.30 p.m. at 'Kaithapuram' ozhur amsom Eranallur desom, in furtherance of the common intention of the accused nos.1 to 4, they restrained and inflicted injuries on the respondents no.2 and 3 with hand **Crl.M.C.No.3323 of 2013** 2 and iron rod in connection with a property dispute, and the second accused in the above crime was trying to beat the second respondent with iron rod and attempted to commit culpable homicide and now, the case of the petitioners is that the matter is settled out of court, between the de facto complainant who is the 2[nd] respondent herein and the injured who is the 3[rd] respondent herein. Accordingly, Annexure III affidavits are sworn into by the 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that during the pendency of the above crime, the matter is settled amicably between the parties to the dispute which is the subject matter of the above crime. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above crime is abuse of process of law and proceedings. 5. The learned counsel for the 2[nd] and 3[rd] **Crl.M.C.No.3323 of 2013** 3 respondents who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondents submitted that the above respondents, who are the de facto complainant and the injured respectively, do not intends 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, 324, 308 r/w 34 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, **Crl.M.C.No.3323 of 2013** 4 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] and 3[rd] respondents, it appears to me that the de facto complainant and the injured have 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 Gian Singh's 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.” **Crl.M.C.No.3323 of 2013** 5 ## 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 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 **Crl.M.C.No.3323 of 2013** 6 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. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing Annexure-I FIR and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.P.No.23 of 2013 in Crime No.69 of 2013 of Tanur Police Station. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** ami/ //True copy// P.A. to Judge