## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT:**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN**
**WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/9TH ASWINA, 1936**
## **Crl.MC.No. 5148 of 2014 ()**
**--------------------------CRIME NO. 530/2014 OF THAMARASSERY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT**
**---------------------**
## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED :**
**------------------------------------**
## **1. MUHAMMED ALI,**
**SON OF ABDUL KALAM, 28 YEARS KARIMBAYIL, EENGAPUZHA PUTHUPPADI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.**
## **2. NAUSHAD**
**SON OF LATE MOHAMMED, PALATTUKKAL HOUSE, PUTHUPADI KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.**
## **3. SHAMEER**
**SON OF IBRAHIM, 29 YEARS, MANNARAYIL HOUSE POST PUTHUPPADI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.**
## **BY ADV. SRI.B.HARISH KUMAR**
## **RESPONDENTS/STATE, COMPLAINANT AND INJURED :**
**-------------------------------------------------------------------------------**
## **1. STATE OF KERALA**
**REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.**
## **2. ABDUL RASHID,**
**S/O.MOIDEEN KUTTY, AGED 36 YEARS ARONGOTTIL, THEKKINTHOTTATIL POST PERUMPALLY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT- 673 305.**
## **3. SAFINA,**
**WIFE OF ABDUL RASHID, AGED 26 YEARS, ARONGOTTIL, THEKKINTHOTTATIL POST PERUMPALLY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 305.**
**R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. R. REMA R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN**
**THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-10-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
**Mn**
**...2/-**
## **Crl.MC.No. 5148 of 2014 () -------------------------------------**
## **APPENDIX**
## **PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES :**
|**PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES :**|**PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES :**|
|---|---|
|**-------------------------------------------**||
|**ANNEXURE-1:**|**COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME 530/14 OF THE THAMARASSERY**|
||**POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.**|
|**ANNEXURE-2:**|**AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY RESPONDENTS 2 & 3.**|
|**ANNEXURE-3:**|**CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIS LEADING TO ANNEXURE I.**|
|**RESPONDENT(S)'**|**EXHIBITS : NIL**|
|**--------------------------------------------------------**||
**//TRUE COPY//**
**P.A. TO JUDGE Mn**
## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.5148 of 2014 ------------------------------Dated this the 1[st] day of October, 2014.**
## **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 the accused in Crime No.530 of 2014 of Thamarassery Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 294(b), 448 and 354 r/w 34 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in the above crime, as the matter is settled out of court.
2. The allegation in the above case is that, the 1[st] petitioner herein, who is a contractor by profession, has completed construction of a house for the 2[nd] respondent/de facto complainant and it is alleged that on 18.7.2014 at about 6 p.m., when the 2[nd] respondent/de facto complainant was away from his home, the 1[st] accused and others came to 2[nd] respondent's house to see him and after his arrival,
**Crl.M.C.No.5148 of 2014**
2
the 1[st] petitioner demanded the amount of Rs.1 lakh which was lying as balance towards the consideration for having constructed the house belonging to the de facto complainant and at that time, the de facto complainant pointed out the faulty workmanship of the construction and the damage thereby caused to the house and he pointed out the leaking portions and asked him to rectify the same, but still when the petitioner asked for the balance amount due to him, there was a scuffle and on seeing this, the wife of the de facto complainant came to the premises and tried to intervene in the matter and the petitioners and others thereupon assaulted her also and thereby committed the offences as alleged by the prosecution. Now, the case of the petitioners is that the matter is settled out of court.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as respondent nos.2 and 3. 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
**Crl.M.C.No.5148 of 2014**
3
settled amicably between the parties to the dispute, which is the subject matter of the above case, as per Annexure-2 affidavit sworn into by respondent nos.2 and 3. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above case is abuse of process of law and proceedings.
5. The learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3, who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondents submitted that the above respondents, who are the de facto complainant and injured respectively, do not intends to proceed any further against the petitioners and they have no grievance against the petitioners.
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
**Crl.M.C.No.5148 of 2014**
4
involved in the case, it can be seen that the offences involved in the above case are only under Sections 341, 323, 324, 294(b), 448 and 354 r/w 34 of I.P.C. 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 respondent nos.2 and 3, 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
**Crl.M.C.No.5148 of 2014**
5
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 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
6
## **Crl.M.C.No.5148 of 2014**
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 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 decision 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 Crime No.530 of 2014 of Thamarassery Police Station.
Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge.**
ami/
//True copy//
P.A.to Judge
