Mohammed Abbas A v State of Kerala and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** ## **MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/20TH JYAISHTA 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2034 of 2013** ## **--------------------------------SC 15/2012 ofSESSIONSCOURT, KASARAGOD CRIME NO. 391/2007 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION , KASARGOD** **----------------------** ## **PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:** **-----------------------------------------** **MOHAMMED ABBAS.A, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.LATE ABDUL RAHMAN, RESIDING AT EROL HOUSE, EROL, BARA POST AND VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANTS** **--------------------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. THE STATE OF KERALA** **THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BEKAL POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.** **2. M.BABU,S/O.MAYILAN, AGED 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT POORNIMA HOUSE, NALAM VADUKKAL, HARIJAN COLONY, BARA VILLAGE HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN 671319.** **3. B.MADHAVAN, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.KALYAPPEDI, RESIDING AT NALAM VADUKKAL, HARIJAN COLONY, BARA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK KASARAGOD DISTREICT, PIN 671319.** ## **4. K.RAMESAN, AGED 27 YEARS** - **S/O.KUTTY, RESIDING AT NALAM VADUKKAL, HARIJAN COLONY BARA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT PIN 671319.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.T.SHEEBA R2,3,4 BY ADV. SMT.BINDUMOL JOSEPH** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **PJ** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2034 of 2013** ## **-----------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:** **---------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE-A1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.391/2007 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE-A2: THE TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.391/2007 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE-A3: THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 30.4.2013 SWORN IN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **ANNEXURE-A4: THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 30.4.2013 SWORN IN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **ANNEXURE-A5: THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 30.4.2013 SWORN IN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:** **----------------------------------------------** **NIL.** **TRUE COPY** **P.S.TO JUDGE** **PJ** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** **---------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No. 2034 of 2013** **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 10[th] day of June, 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 petitioner, who is the sole accused in S.C.No.15 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Kasaragod, which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No. 391 of 2007 of Bekal Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143,147,323 read with Section 149 of the I.P.C. And Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Act,1989 with a prayer to quash Annexure A2 final report and all further proceedings pursuant to it in Crime No.391/2007 of Bekal Police Station which is now pending as S.C.No.15/2012 on the file of the Principal Session's Court, Kasaragod as the matter is settled out of court. Crl.M.C.No.2034 of 2013 **==> picture [21 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** 2. The allegation in the above case is that on 26.9.2007 at 8 p.m. at the Public road in Nalamvathukkal in Bara Village, the accused, because of their previous enmity towards the de facto complainant as the de facto complainant questioned the accused, as they assaulted the brother of the de facto complainant, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and assaulted the de facto complainant and M/s.Ramesh and Madhavan who were then accompanying the de facto complainant by hands and abused them by calling caste name, thereby the accused committed the above offences. The investigation of the above crime was completed and the first respondent filed Annexure A2 final report chargesheeting the accused for the offences mentioned above. Based on Annexure A2 final report, the Magistrate initiated committal proceedings against the accused and the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Kasaragod for trial and disposal of the same. It is submitted that final report was filed before the Magistrate against accused Nos.1,2 and 5 only, as the Crl.M.C.No.2034 of 2013 **==> picture [21 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** accused Nos.3,4 and 6 happened to be juveniles and therefore, the final report as against accused Nos.3,4 and 6 were filed before the Juvenile Justice Board, Kasaragod. The Sessions Court had taken cognizance for the above offences and initiated proceedings in SC No.15/2012 on its file. Pursuant to the summons issued by the sessions Court against the accused in the above S.C., the petitioner who is the second accused in the above crime as well as in the above S.C. appeared before the Sessions Court, Kasaragod and he was enlarged on bail. The other two accused viz., the first and fifth accused did not surrender before the Sessions Court, kasaragod and the case against them is split up and refiled as LPC No.69 of 2012 and thus, the petitioner herein is the sole accused in SC No.15 of 2012 of the Principal Sessions Court, Kasaragod. Now, the case of the petitioner is that the matter is settled out of court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4. I have also heard Crl.M.C.No.2034 of 2013 **==> picture [21 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the above case, the matter is settled amicably between the parties to the dispute which is the subject matter of the above case. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above case is abuse of process of law and proceedings. 5. The learned counsel for the party respondents, who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondents submitted that the above respondents, who are the de facto complainants do not intend to proceed any further against the petitioner and they have no grievance against him. 6. I have carefully considered the above submissions of the respective counsels. 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 Crl.M.C.No.2034 of 2013 :-5-: 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 143,147,323 read with Section 149 of the I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Act,1989, 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 respondents, it appears to me that the de facto complainants have no further grievance against the petitioner/ 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 v. **Gian Singh State of Punjab** [2012(4) KLT 108(SC)] in which, the Supreme Court has held as follows:- _“57. The position that emerges from the above discussion_ Crl.M.C.No.2034 of 2013 :-6-: _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 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_ Crl.M.C.No.2034 of 2013 **==> picture [21 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** _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........”_ 8. 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. 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 in 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. Crl.M.C.No.2034 of 2013 **==> picture [21 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** 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 A2 final report and all further proceedings pursuant to it in Crime No.391/2007 of Bekal Police Station which is now pending as S.C.No.15/2012 on the file of the Principal Session's Court, Kasaragod. **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** MBS/ Crl.M.C.No.2034 of 2013 :-9-: