Majeed, Vapputty and Shafeek v. State of Kerala and Mohammedkutty

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** ## **THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/6TH ASHADHA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2587 of 2013** **----------------------------------[C.P.NO.21/2011 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PATTAMBI & CRIME NO. 596/2007 OF PATTAMBI POLICE STATION]** **................** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3:** **-----------------------------------------------** **1. MAJEED,33 YEARS, S/O MOHAMMEDKUTTY.** **2. VAPPUTTY, 46 YEARS, S/O MOHAMMEDKUTY.** ## **3. SHAFEEK, 23 YEARS,** - **S/O VAPPUTTY @ MAMMIKUTTY.** **ALL ARE RESIDING AT POTTAMMAL HOUSE, KEEZHMURI DESOM, PATTAMBI VILLAGE & POST.** **BY ADVS.SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI, SRI.R.VENUGOPAL, SRI.R.SREEHARI.** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:** **-------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATTAMBI POLICE STATION, PATTAMBI-679 303.** ## **2. MUHAMMEDKUTTY, 50 YEARS,** **S/O MOIDEENKUTY, KOONARATH HOUSE, NADUVATTOM DESOM, KOPPAM VILLAGE, PATTAMBI-679 303.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.N.SURESH, R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-06-2013, ALONG WITH CRL.M.C. NO.2588/2013,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Prv.** ## **CRL.M.C. NO.2587/2013:** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:** **ANNEXURE A1: PHOTO COPY OF F I R IN CRIME NO.596/2007 OF PATTAMBI POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2: PHOTO COPY OF FIRST INFORMATION STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A3: PHOTO COPY OF F I R IN CRIME NO.597/2007 OF PATTAMBI POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A4: PHOTO COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.596/2007 OF PATTAMBI POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A5: PHOTO COPY OF WOUND CERTIFICAE WITH RESPECT TO THE INJURY SUSTAINED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A6: PHOTO COPY OF ORDER PASSED IN SESSIONS CASE NO.358/2012 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, OTTAPALAM DATED 7.6.2013. ANNEXURE A7: PHOTO COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.597/2007 OF PATTAMBI POLICE SATION FILED BEFORE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISRATE COURT, PATTAMBI. ANNEXURE A8: PHOTO COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN CC NO.271/2008 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PATTAMBI.** ## **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL.** ## **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE.** **Prv.** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **---------------------------------------Crl.M.C.Nos. 2587 & 2588 of 2013** **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 27[th] day of June, 2013 ## **O R D E R** The petitioners in the above two Crl.M.Cs. are accused in Crime No.596 of 2007 of Pattambi Police Station where the offences alleged are under Sections 143,147,148,341,324 and 308 read with Section 149 I.P.C. According to the petitioners, there is a counter case i.e.,Crime No.597 of 2007 in which the second respondent herein, who is the de facto complainant in the present crime is the accused. In the said counter case, the only offence alleged is under Section 324 which was compounded as per the settlement arrived into between the accused and the de facto complainant. Now, the case of the petitioners is that since non-compoundable offences are involved in the present crime, i.e., Crime No.596 of 2007, the same cannot be compounded. Therefore, they preferred the above MCs. with a prayer to quash all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.P.No.21 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pattambi and C.C.No.1519 of 2013 Crl.M.C.Nos.2587 & 2588 of 2013 :-2-: pending before the same court, especially when the matter is settled out of court. 2. Heard the counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in both the above cases. 3. Crime No.596 of 2007 was registered at the instance of the second respondent herein on the allegation that the accused at about 8 p.m. on 17.11.2007 attacked the de facto complainant, while he was walking and reached at Neduvattam Madras Quarters, by using deadly weapons and thereby committed the said offences. Connected with the same incident, a counter case is registered as Crime No.597 of 2007 where the second respondent herein is the accused where the third petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.2587 of 2013 is the third accused in Crime No.596 of 2007. Now the case of the petitioner is that as the counter case has already been compounded, proceedings pending against the petitioners may be quashed in the light of the amicable settlement arrived into between the parties. In both the above MCs., the second respondent has filed an affidavit dated 22.6.2013. Crl.M.C.Nos.2587 & 2588 of 2013 :-3-: 4. 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. 5. 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 Sections 143,147,148,341,324 and 308 read with Section 149 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 second 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. Crl.M.C.Nos.2587 & 2588 of 2013 :-4-: ## 6. In the decision of the Honourable Apex Court reported in **Gian** v. **Singh 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 predominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from_ Crl.M.C.Nos.2587 & 2588 of 2013 :-5-: _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. 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 Crl.M.C.Nos.2587 & 2588 of 2013 :-6-: 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, these Criminal M.Cs. can be allowed granting the relief as sought for. In the result, these Crl.M.Cs. are allowed quashing the proceedings in C.P.No.21 of 2011 on the file of the JFCM Court, Pattambi and also Anenxure A1 FIR and Annexure A4 final report in Crime No.596 of 2007 of Pattambi Police Station and the proceedings in Crime No.596/2007 of Patttambi Police Station and C.C.No.1519 of 2013 pending before the JFCM Court, Pattambi including Annexure A1 FIR and Annexure A4 final report. **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** MBS/ Crl.M.C.Nos.2587 & 2588 of 2013 :-7-: