Majeed v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** **TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/29TH MAGHA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1180 of 2014 ()** **--------------------------CRIME NO. 191/2006 OF BAKAL POLICE STATION, KASARGOD ---------------** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED :** **--------------------------------------** **MAJEED, AGED 30 YEARS S/O. PARAYIL IBRAHIM, PARAYIL HOUSE, PALLIKKARA P.O. PALLIKKARA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN SRI.P.V.ANOOP** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE :** **------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. T.C.SURESH, AGED 48 YEARS S/O. CHIDAMBARAN, THEKKEKUNNU HOUSE PALLIKKERE VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671317.** ## **2. STATE OF KERALA** **REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.PHIJO PRADEESH PHILIP R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S. HYMA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-02-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Mn** **...2/-** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1180 of 2014 ()** **-------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES : -------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE A. A COPY OF THE CHARGE SUBMITTED BY THE POLICE IN CRIME NO. 191/2006 OF BAKAL POLICE STATION, KASARGOD WHICH IS NOW PENDING AS LP NO. 11/2012 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (ADHOC-II) KASARGOD.** **ANNEXURE B. A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN SC NO. 10/2008 ON THE FILE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE ADHOC-II, KASARGOD DATED 31-10-2009.** **ANNEXURE C. COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22.01.2014.** **ANNEXURE D. A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16-1-2013 IN CRL. M.C. NO. 141/2013 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL** **-----------------------------------------------------------** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE Mn** K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J. -----------------------------------------------------------------Crl. M. C. No.1180 of 2014 --------------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 18[th] day of February, 2014 ## O R D E R This criminal miscellaneous case is filed by the petitioner, who is the original 7[th] accused in Crime No.191/2006 of Bekal Police Station, to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the 'Code'). 2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner is the original 7[th] accused in Crime No.191/2006 of Bekal Police Station and he was arrayed as accused along with 8 other persons, alleging offences under Section 143, 147, 436 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation final report was field and the case against the other accused persons were committed to Sessions Court, where it was taken on the file as S.C.No.10/2008. Accused Nos.2 to 8 faced trial and the case against them was ended in acquittal, as per Annexure- Crl. M. C. No.1180 of 2014 2 B judgment of the Additional Sessions Court (ADHOC-II), Kasaragod, dated 31.10.2009. Thereafter the 9[th] accused settled the claim with the defacto-complainant and filed Criminal M.C.No.141/2013 before this court and that was allowed and the case against him was quashed as per Annexure-D order. Now the only accused left out is the present petitioner and since he was absconding, the case against him was split up and transferred to the register of long pending cases as L.P.No.11/2012 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court (ADHOC-II), Ksaragod. The matter has been now settled between the parties and the first respondent has no objection in quashing the proceedings. Since the offences alleged are non-compoundable in nature, he had no option but to approach this court to quash the proceedings, invoking the power under Section 482 of the 'Code'. So the petitioner filed this application, seeking the following relief: “For these and other grounds to be urged at the time of hearing it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly quash the entire proceedings in Crl. M. C. No.1180 of 2014 3 L.P.No.11.2012 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge (Adhoc-II), Kasaragod (AnnexureA).” 3. The first respondent appeared through counsel and field an affidavit stating that, the matter has been settled between the partis and he has no objection in quashing the proceedings as against the petitioner also. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that, the petitioner has no involvement in any other criminal case and he has no criminal back ground as well, but opposed the application. 5. Heard both sides. 6. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.7 in Crime No.191/2006 of Bekal Police Station, alleging offences under Section 143, 147, 436 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also an admitted fact that, after investigation Annexure-A final report was filed and after committal, the case was taken on the file by the Sessions Judge as S.C.No.10/2008, as against all the accused persons. Since the present 4 Crl. M. C. No.1180 of 2014 accused and the 9[th] accused absconded, during the pendency of the case before the Additional Sessions Court (ADHOC-II), Kasaragod, the case against other accused persons, namely accused Nos. 2 to 6, 7 and 9 were taken on the file as S.C.No.10/2008. Thereafter the case against the original first accused was also committed and it was taken on the file as S.C.No.25/2009 and later it was clubbed with S.C.10/2008 and the first accused in the crime and sole accused in S.C.No.25/2009 was arrayed as 8[th] accused in S.C.No.10/2008. Since the present petitioner and 9[th] accused were absconding, the case against them was split up and the case against accused Nos.1 to 6 was proceeded with and it was ended in acquittal, evidenced by AnnexureB judgment and it is also seen from the judgment that, none of the witnesses have supported the prosecution, so the Sessions Judge had acquitted the accused in S.C.No.10/2008 under Section 232 of the 'Code'. Later the 9[th] accused in the case filed Criminal M.C.No.141/2013 5 Crl. M. C. No.1180 of 2014 before this court, for quashing the proceedings against him and that was also allowed as per Annexure-D judgment of this court and the case against him was quashed on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the present defacto-complaint and the 9[th] accused in the case. Now the petitioner also settled the case with the defactocomplainant and field this application for quashing the proceedings as against him. 7. In the decision reported in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012(4) KLT 108 (SC)],** it has been held that: “The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceedings 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 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 FIR may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case an 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 Crl. M. C. No.1180 of 2014 6 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 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 proceedings or continuation of the criminal proceedings 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.” 8. In this case, it is a private dispute between the parties, which resulted in the case. Further most of the accused persons were acquitted by the Sessions Court after trial, none of the witnesses including the defactocomplainant had supported the case of the prosecution, as the matter was settled between them. The case against the 7 Crl. M. C. No.1180 of 2014 9[th] accused was quashed by this court as per Annexure-D judgment. So considering the circumstances, I feel that no purpose will be served by allowing the trial to continue as regards the petitioner as well, as the case has been settled between the defacto-complainant and the petitioner and the defacto-complainant field an affidavit before this court marked as Annexure-C, admitting the settlement and expressing his willingness to quash the proceedings, as against the petitioner. So considering the circumstances, since the very foundation of the case has been lost on account of the settlement and most of the accused persons were acquitted by the court on the question of identification, I feel that no purpose will be served by retaining this case on file and it is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of the 'Code' has to be invoked to quash the proceedings as against the petitioner as well. So the petition is allowed and further proceedings in L.P.No.11/2012 (Crime No.191/2006 of Bekal Police Station) Crl. M. C. No.1180 of 2014 8 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (ADHOC-II), Kasaragod, as against the petitioner is quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court for necessary further action, in this regard. Sd/K. Ramakrishnan, Judge // True Copy // P.A. to Judge ss