Mohammed Nisham, Sanjay and Nishad v. State of Kerala and Shamsudheen

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** ## **FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/7TH ASHADHA, 193** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2577 of 2013 ()** **--------------------------CP.NO. 85/2012 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -I,THRISSUR CRIME NO. 677/2012 OF VIYYOOR POLICE STATION , THRISSUR -----------------------------------** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED :** **-----------------------------------------** **1. MOHAMMED NISHAM, S/O. ABDUL KHADER, AGED 37 YEARS, ADDAKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MUTHICHUR,ANTHIKAD (VIA),** **THRISSUR.** **2. SANJAY, AGED 31 YEARS,** - **S/O. UNNI, VALAPARAMBIL HOUSE, SHANKERAIYER ROAD, THRISSUR.** **3. NISHAD, AGED 24 YEARS,** - **S/O. KANNAN, CHETTATH HOUSE, KANNATKARA, IYENTHOLE, THRISSUR.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI** ## **RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE:** **--------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, (CRIME NO.677/2012 OF VIYYOOR POLICE STATION), REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.** **2. SHAMSUDHEEN, AGED 29 YEARS,** - **S/O. THOPPILTHODI RAHIM, THOPPILTHODI HOUSE, VEROOR DESOM, VIYYUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR.PIN-680 010** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.N.SURESH R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.R.RANJITH** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** **Crl.MC.No. 2577 of 2013 () ---------------------------------------APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES: -------------------------------------------ANNEX A : COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET CUM FINAL REPORT FILED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL 1ST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, THRISSUR. ANNEX B : COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO.JUDGE** **sts** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **---------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.2577 of 2013 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 28[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 petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No. 677 of 2012 of Viyyoor Police Station, which is pending before the court of Judicial First class Magistrate-I, Thrissur, for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 506(ii), 323, 324, 326, 308 r/w 34 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure A charge sheet cum final report in the above crime, as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above crime is that due to animosity connected with the altercation that taken place at Thrissur, on 28.6.2012 at about 10 a.m., the 1[st] accused along with other accused came in a car bearing registration No.KL-08-AT 777 and trespassed into house where the de ## **Crl.M.C.No.2577 of 2013** :-2-: facto complainant residing with his family and the 1[st] accused hit the de facto complainant with knuckle duster and thereby inflicted injury on his nose and the 2[nd] accused attempted to inflict stab injury with knife and the 3[rd] accused beat the de facto complainant with iron rode and thereby the accused has committed the offences punishable under sections 452, 506(ii), 323, 324, 326, 308 r/w 34 of I.P.C. Now, the case of the petitioners is that the matter is settled out of court, as evident from Annexure B affidavit sworn in by the 2[nd] respondent. 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 ## **Crl.M.C.No.2577 of 2013** :-3-: 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 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 452, 506 (ii), 323, 324, 326, 308 r/w 34 of I.P.C. which are more or ## **Crl.M.C.No.2577 of 2013** :-4-: 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. **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 **Crl.M.C.No.2577 of 2013** :-5-: 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 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 ## **Crl.M.C.No.2577 of 2013** :-6-: 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. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing Annexure - A charge sheet cum final report in Crime No. 677 of 2012 of Viyyoor Police Station, which is pending before the court of Judicial First class Magistrate-I, Thrissur, and all further proceedings thereto. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** ami/ //True copy// P.A. to Judge