IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN
MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/21ST SRAVANA, 1935
Crl.MC.No. 3325 of 2013 () ---------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN C.C NO. 364/2011 of J.F.C.M, MALAPPURAM CRIME NO. 437/2010 OF KONDOTTY POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
-----------------------------
1. MOHANDAS
- S/O.NEELANDAN, MELANGADI P.O., KONDOTTY MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
2. KRISHNAN
- S/O.CHATHAN, MELANGADI P.O., KONDOTTY MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
3. SWAMI AMARAN
- S/O.UNNIKARI, MELANGADI P.O., KONDOTTY MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
4. SAIDALAVI
S/O.AHAMMED, MELANGADI P.O., KONDOTTY MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
5. ASKAR ALI
- S/O.SAIDALAVI, MELANGADI P.O., KONDOTTY MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.BABU S. NAIR SRI.K.RAKESH
RESPONDENT/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
-------------------------------------------------------
## 1. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682031.
## 2. P.K.MUHAMMED KUTTY
S/O.KUNHAMMED HAJI, NEDUNGATTU HOUSE, A.R.NAGAR AMSOM TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 676306.
3. P.K.MOIDEENKUTTY
S/O.KUNHAMMED HAJI, NEDUNGATTU HOUSE, A.R.NAGAR AMSOM TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 676306.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAFEEK V.K. R2,R3 BY ADV. SRI.R.RANJITH (K/489/2011)
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ma
Crl.MC.No. 3325 of 2013 ()
---------------------------
## APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
----------------------------
ANNEXURE-A: TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME NO.437/2010 OF THE KONDOTTY POLICE STATION DATED, 28.10.2010. ANNEXURE-B: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM EVIDENCE AND CHARGE IN CRIME NO.437/2010 OF THE KONDOTTY POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE-C: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE A NOTARY PUBLIC DT, 25.7.2013.
## RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
------------------------------
/TRUE COPY/
P.A TO JUDGE
ma
## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.**
**------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.3325 of 2013 ------------------------------Dated this the 12[th] day of August, 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 in C.C.No.364/2011 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram, which is a case instituted upon the police report [in Crime No.437/2010 of Kondotty Police Station] for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 427, r/w 149 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in the above calendar case, as the matter is settled out of court.
2. The allegation in the above case is that, on 28.10.2010 at 18.00 hours on the ground of political animosity, the petitioners formed an unlawful assembly and with an intention to cause destruction to the property
**Crl.M.C.No.3325 of 2013**
2
of the respondents 2 and 3, using weapon, destroyed the Neon bulbs, show glass, display boards of the shop of the party respondents and further destroyed the windshield of a vehicle bearing No.KL-11 Y/7181 parked in the parking bay of the shop. Now, the case of the petitioners is that the matter is settled out of court with the de facto complainant who is the 2[nd] respondent herein and the injured who is the 3[rd] respondent herein, who have sworn into Annexure C affidavit.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners 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.
3
## **Crl.M.C.No.3325 of 2013**
5. The learned counsel for the 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents, who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondents submitted that the above respondents, who are the de facto complainant and the injured do not intends to proceed any further against the petitioners and they have 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 143, 147, 148, 427, r/w 149 of I.P.C. which are more or less personal in nature and no public interest is involved. It is pertinent to
**Crl.M.C.No.3325 of 2013**
4
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] and 3[rd] respondents, it appears to me that the de facto complainant and the injured have 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 settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed.”
**Crl.M.C.No.3325 of 2013**
5
## 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 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
6
## **Crl.M.C.No.3325 of 2013**
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 all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.364/2011 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram, in Crime No.437/2010 of Kondotty Police Station.
Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge**
ami/
//True copy//
P.A. to Judge
