Moideen @ Thankaman v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/10TH MAGHA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 408 of 2017 () --------------------------** **SC 184/2012 OF PRINCIPAL SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD. CRIME NO.239/2004 OF OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. ...........** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 5:** **----------------------------------** **1. MOIDEEN @ THANKAMAN, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.KUNJAN @ KUNJIKOYA, ADICHIRA HOUSE, CHUNANGADU, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** **2. ABDUL KHADER @ KUNJI KHADER, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. KUNJAN @ KUNJIKOYA, ADICHIRA HOUSE, CHUNANGADU, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** **3. SHAJAHAN, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL KHADER @ KUNJIKHADER, ADICHIRA HOUSE, CHUNANGADU, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** **4. MOHAMMED KUTTY, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.KUNJAN @ KUNJIKOYA, ADICHIRA HOUSE, ULAPPURAM, CHUNANGADU, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** **5. SULAIMAN, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.KUNAN @ KUNJIKOYA, ADICHIRA HOUSE, ULAPPURAM, CHUNANGADU, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW** **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINNT & OTHER INJURED: -------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.** **--2--** **--2--** ## **Crl.MC.No. 408 of 2017 ()** ## **-------------------------** **2. BIYA, AGED 48 YEARS, W/O.MOIDEEN @ THANKAMAN, ADICHIRA HOUSE, CHUNANGADU, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 673 101.** **3. SHAMEER BABU, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.MOIDEEN @ THANKAMAN, ADICHIRA HOUSE, CHUNANGADU, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 673 101.** **4. SHAFEEK, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. MOIDEEN @ THANKANAM, ADICHIRA HOUSE, CHUNANGADU, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 673 101.** **5. SHAMEENA, AGED 26 YEARS, D/O. MOIDEEN @ THANKANAM, ADICHIRA HOSUE, CHUNANGADU, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 673 101.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA R2 TO R5 BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSE** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **mbr/** ## **Crl.MC.No. 408 of 2017 () --------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:** **ANNEXURE A : PHOTOCOPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 239/2004 OF OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE B : THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED 28.11.2016.** - **ANNEXURE C : THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 DATED 28.11.2016.** - **ANNEXURE D : THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 DATED 22.12.2016.** - **ANNEXURE E : THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE RESPONDENT NO.5 DATED 28.11.2016.** ## **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **mbr/** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## Crl.M.C. No. 408 of 2017 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 30[th] January, 2017 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **ORDER** - 1.This petition is filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') with a prayer to invoke the extraordinary inherent powers and to quash the pending criminal proceedings. - 2.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 to 5 in S.C.No.184 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Palakkad. In the aforesaid case, they face indictment under Sections 143, 147, 323, 355, 342 and 365 read with Section 149 of the IPC. - 3.The 1[st] petitioner is the brother of the petitioners 2, 4 and - 5 and 3[rd] petitioner is the son of the 2[nd] petitioner. Respondents 2 to 5 are wife and children of the 1[st] petitioner. According to the prosecution, the petitioners herein in furtherance of their common intention to cause injuries to respondents 2 to 5 had abducted and Crl.M.C. No.408 of 2017 -2- wrongfully confined them in the Tharavadu house of the petitioners herein and assaulted them causing bodily injuries. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties are near relatives. According to the learned counsel, they have realised that it is not in their best interest to continue with the prosecution proceedings and consequently, they have entered into a compromise and have settled the matter. The learned counsel appearing for the parties submits that in view of the resolution of the disputes, the proceedings before the criminal court is a futile exercise. Much reliance is placed on the affidavits sworn to by the victims, to buttress their submissions. - 5.The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions expresses his reservations in the matter. However it is submitted that tthe petitioners are not persons with criminal antecedents. Crl.M.C. No.408 of 2017 -3- ## 6.I have considered the submissions. 7.The position with regard to quashing of proceedings on the basis of compromise between the parties is by now well settled. In **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab** [(2012) 10 SCC 303] Apex Court has laid down that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. It was observed as follows : _“61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”_ 8.The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court Crl.M.C. No.408 of 2017 -4- ## in **Narinder singh v. State of Punjab. [** (2014) 6 SCC 466], the pertinent observations which are as under: _XXXXXXXXXXX_ _29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:_ _(i) ends of justice, or_ _(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives._ _xxxxxxx_ _xxxxxxx_ 9.The offence committed by the petitioners cannot be said to be grave and serious having ingredients of extreme mental depravity. It also does not appear that the offence in this case will have a serious impact on the society. It is felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and secure the ends of justice. Even otherwise, persisting with the prosecution Crl.M.C. No.408 of 2017 -5- would be nothing but a waste of time as the prospects of conviction would be bleak. 10.Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court will be well justified in invoking its extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings. In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as S.C.No.184 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Palakkad are quashed. **Sd/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE** kp/31.1.17 Continued at page No .6 Crl.M.C. No.408 of 2017 -6- The last sentence of the operative portion of the order dated 30/01/2017 in Crl.M.C.No.408/2017 is corrected and substituted as follow: “ **Annexure-A final report and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners 1, 2, 4 and 5, who are accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 in S.C.No.184/2012 pending on the filed of the I Additional Sessions Court, Palakkad and that against the 3[rd] petitioner, who is the 3[rd] accused in S.C.No.385 of 2014 pending on the files of the I Additional Sessions Court, Palakkad, will stand quashed.”** as per order dated 13/07/2017 in Crl.M.A No.6951/2017 in Crl.M.C.No.408/2017. Sd/Registrar (Judicial)