Marzook P. and Others v. State of Kerala

# IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V FRIDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1941 Crl.MC.No.4085 of 2019 IN CC NO. 994/2016 OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, HOSDRUG CRIME NO.963/2015 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD ## PETITIONERS / ACCUSED 1 TO 9: - 1 MARZOOK P., AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED KUNHI, MARZOOK MANZIL, AVIYIL, KANHANGAD. P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 314. - 2 NAWAS @ MUHMMED NAVAZ, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. MUSTHAFA, MANAVATTY HOUSE, AVIYIL, KANHANGAD. P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 314. - 3 ISMAYIUL P.K., AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. KHADEEJA, MASLAM, KOOTILANGAD, MUKKUD, RAVENESWARAM, CHITHARI, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 314. - 4 IRSHAD.T., AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. AYISHA, THALAKKILLATH HOUSE, MURIYANAVI, KANHANGD P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 314. - 5 RAHMATHULLA N.K., AGED 32 YEARS S/O. IBRAHIM, AVIYIL HOUSE, AVIYIL, KANHANGAD. P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 314. - 6 RASHID T.P., AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. MOIDU, KANDAMKADAVU, AVIYIL, KANHANGAD. P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 314. - 7 YASIR T., AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. SHAIK ABU, MUMTHAZ MANZIL, MURIYANAVI AVIYIL, KANHANGAD. P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 314. - 8 HYDER, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED, PAZHAYA KADAPPURAM, KANHANGAD. P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 314. - 9 SHAHEER @ AJMAL SHAHER O.P., AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. HOMSA O.P., SAJIDA MANZIL, AVIYIL, KANHANGAD. P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 314. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SUBHASH Crl.MC:4085/2019 2 ## RESPONDENTS/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT/STATE: - 1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031. - 2 JABIR P.M., AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL KAREEM, RESIDING AT P.M.HOUSE, KALLOORAVI, KANHANGAD VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 314. - 3 SAHEER, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, RESIDING AT CHATHURAKINAR, MADIKKAI VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK,HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT -671 314. BY ADV. SMT.S.ANU ## OTHER PRESENT: SRI.M.S.BREEZ, SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC:4085/2019 3 ## **ORDER** Invoking the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the Code”, for short), the petitioners have approached this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them by the 2[nd] respondent, which is now pending on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg as C.C. No.994 of 2016. In the above proceeding, they face indictment for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 2. From the prosecution records, it is discernible that the allegation is that on on 7.11.2015 at 10.30 hours, the petitioners formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common intention, attacked the party respondents and caused injuries. 3. Heard Sri.P.K.Subhash, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt.S.Anu, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3, and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Smt.S.Anu, the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents, submitted that after much deliberations, the de facto complainant has resolved his disputes and differences with the petitioners and he has now decided that the continuance of criminal proceedings is an unwanted exercise. The learned counsel would refer to the affidavit filed by the 2[nd] respondent before this Court Crl.MC:4085/2019 4 and asserts that he has no objection in bringing the prosecution proceedings to a premature termination. He also points out that the injured witness, who has been arrayed as the 3[rd] respondent, has also filed affidavit stating that he has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings. 5. Sri. P.K.Subhash, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, urged that in view of the compromise arrived at between the victims and the offenders, the possibility of conviction is bleak and the continuation of the criminal proceedings will only inure to put both the parties to oppression and prejudice. Both sides submit that the wrong is basically private in nature and no public interest is involved. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the investigating officer has reported that the petitioners are not involved in any other crimes. It is further submitted that the State has no serious objection in quashing the proceedings against them in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties. 7. I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the records. 8. The factors that are to be borne while exercising the powers conferred on this Court by Section 482 of the Code in the context of considering a prayer for quashing criminal proceedings on the basis of resolution of disputes Crl.MC:4085/2019 5 between the offender and the victim have been laid down by the Apex Court in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr** . [(2012) 10 SCC 303]; **Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and Another** [(2013) 4 SCC 58]; **Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another** [(2014) 6 SCC 466]; **Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another** [(2017) 9 SCC 641] and **State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and others** , [(2019) 4 SCALE 200]. It was held that the inherent jurisdiction vested in the High Court, as recognized and preserved by Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, is primarily to prevent abuse of the process of court or to secure the ends of justice. The guiding light behind the exercise of inherent power is to do real, complete and substantial justice. It was also held that while examining the prayer for quashing of a non compoundable offence, on the basis of settlement of the dispute between the wrongful doer and the victim, this Court must necessarily consider whether the possibility of conviction is remote and oblique and further as to whether the continuation of the criminal proceedings would lead to oppression and prejudice. The courts were reminded that the antecedents of the accused, possible lack of bona fides, his past conduct, including his earlier abscondance, and as to how he had managed to enter into a compromise with the victim are some of the factors which are to reckoned while exercising this extraordinary power. The Apex Court had also cautioned that this Court, when called upon to exercise the power Crl.MC:4085/2019 6 under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C to bring the criminal case to an end on the basis of settlement, must steer clear of intervention in heinous or serious offences, including those involving mental depravity, as indeed economic offences affecting the financial and economic well being of the State, such as murder, attempt to murder, extortion, forgery, rape, dacoity, financial or economic frauds, cases under Arms Act, etc. Those offences were held as having a tendency to have a serious impact upon the society and continuation of trial thereof is essential due to overriding element of public interest. It was also held that the mere fact that the police have incorporated a grave offence in the FIR or the final report would not be a deterrent if the records reveal that the ingredients of the offence are not made out. 9. In the light of the above principles, I have perused the prosecution records. The injuries allegedly inflicted by the petitioners cannot be said to be grave and serious having ingredients of extreme mental depravity. I have also noted the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that the statements of the victims have been recorded by the investigating officer and that they have asserted that it is not in their best interest that the prosecution proceedings continue. Having considered the case in hand on the touchstone of the aforementioned parameters, I am of the view that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace. In a case such as the instant one, even if the prosecution is allowed to continue, it would not serve any Crl.MC:4085/2019 7 purpose as the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. It can only result in putting the victims and the accused to unwanted oppression and prejudice. Settlement will augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony. In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-AII final report and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.C. No.994 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg are quashed. **Sd/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE** KRJ //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE Crl.MC:4085/2019 8 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE-A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.963/2015 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION ANNEXURE-AII CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT CRIME NO.963/2015 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION ANNEXURE-AIII A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ENDORSING THE FACTUM OF COMPOUNDING OF THE SAID OFFENCES AND THE SETTLEMENT OF THE DISPUTES** **ANNEXURE-IV A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ENDORSING THE FACTUM OF COMPOUNDING OF THE SAID OFFENCES AND THE SETTLEMENT OF THE DISPUTES**