M. Nasar and others v. State of Kerala and Abdul Vajid K.P.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/8TH BHADRA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3203 of 2013 ()** **----------------------------------CRIME NO. 976/2012 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION , KASARGOD. ......** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 3 TO 12:** **-------------------------------------------------------------** **1. M.NASAR, AGED 42 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMED, PADANNA, PADANNA VILLAGE HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **2. JAMAL M. AGED 39 YEARS S/O. K.P.HAMSA, UDINNUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **3. MUSTHAFA ,AGED 39 YEARS S/O. SHAHUL HAMEED, UDINNUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **4. T.K.FIZAL ,AGED 26 YEARS S/O. IBRAHIM, UDINNUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **5. ZAMEER T.K. AGED 29 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMED K.P., UDINNUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **6. MUHAMMED ZAMEER T. , AGED 29 YEARS S/O. KUNHAMMED, PEELIKKODE VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **7. USAF K. ,AGED 46 YEARS S/O. M.V.SULAIMAN, THEKETHRIKARIPURE VILLAGE HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **8. P.K.RASIK AGED 27 YEARS S/O. M.ABDUL ANEES, UDINOOR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **9. AFSAL VIK, AGED 19 YEARS S/O. ABDUL KHADER, PADANNA, PADANNA VILLAGE KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** ## **CRMC. 3203/2013** ## **10. AMINA V.K. AGED 39 YEARS** - **W/O. ABDUL KHADER, PADANNA VILLAGE, PADANNA HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **11. IBNU MASHOOD, AGED 24 YEARS S/O. K.K.ABDULLA, NEAR BADHAR PALLI, EDACHAKE UDINNUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.K.P.HARISH** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT (CW1 INJURED):** **-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **2. ABDUL VAJID K.P., AGED 35 YEARS S/O. MOIDU T.P., R/AT KAVILATU HOUSE, VELLAPPU SOUTH THRIKKARIPPUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK KASARAGOD DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT MOOSA HAJI MUKKUI, THAYAL BAZAR PADANE, PADANE VILLAGE, PADANNA HOSDURG TALUK KASARAGOD-671312.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. V.H.JASMINE R2 BY ADV. SRI.TOJAN J. VATHIKULAM** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **tss** **Crl.MC.No. 3203 of 2013 ()** **-------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE A1- THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR AND FIS STATEMENT DATED 11-12-2012 IN CRIME NO. 976 OF 2012 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE AII- THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER DATED 29-06-2013 SIGNED BEFORE AN ADVOCATE NOTARY.** **ANNEXURE AIII- A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE AN ADVOCATE NOTARY.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **---------------------------------------** **NIL** **TRUE COPY** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE** **tss** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.3203 of 2013 ------------------------------Dated this the 30[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 and 3 in Crime No.976/2012 of Chandera Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 365 and 395 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in the above crime, as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that on 10.12.2012 at 21.15 p.m., the accused abducted the de facto complainant in a Maruthi car and committed robbery of an amount of `36,200/- and mobile phone which were kept in the pocket of the de facto complainant and thereby committed the offences punishable u/s 365 and 395 of **Crl.M.C.No.3203 of 2013** 2 I.P.C. Now, the case of the petitioners is that the matter is settled out of court with the 2[nd] respondent/de facto complainant, who sworn into Annexure AIII affidavit. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the 2[nd] respondent. 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] 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 petitioners and he has no grievance against them. 6. I have carefully considered the above **Crl.M.C.No.3203 of 2013** 3 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 365 and 395 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 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. **Crl.M.C.No.3203 of 2013** 4 ## **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.” ## 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 **Crl.M.C.No.3203 of 2013** 5 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 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. 6 ## **Crl.M.C.No.3203 of 2013** In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in Crime No.976/2012 of Chandera Police Station. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** ami/ //True copy// P.A. to Judge