## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT:**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN**
**TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2014/11TH CHAITHRA, 1936**
## **Crl.MC.No. 1657 of 2014**
**--------------------------CC NO. 95/2012 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KASARAGOD CRIME NO. 446/2011 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION , KASARAGOD ...**
**PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:**
**------------------------------------------**
**1. MUHAMMED ASHRAF T.M. @ ASHRAF, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, R/AT MAYIPPADY HOUSE, MADHUR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD.**
## **2. LATHEEF T. ,AGED 28 YEARS,**
- **S/O.BEERANKUNHI, THOTAYAR HOUSE, KANNUR VILLAGE, PUTHINGE, KASARAGOD.**
## **3. UBAID M.S., AGED 22 YEARS**
- **S/O.AMUHAJI, MIHRAS MANZIL, SIDDIBAIL, EDANAD VILLAGE, PUTHIGE, KASARAGOD.**
## **4. FAHAD T.A., AGED 24 YEARS,**
- **S/O.ISMAIL, SHAHANIYA MANZIL, MAYIPPADY, MADHUR, KASARAGOD.**
## **5. ABBAS M., AGED 25 YEARS,**
- **S/O.ABDULLA, MAYIPPADY HOUSE, SHIRIBAGILU VILLAGE, MADHUR, KASARAGOD.**
**6. MOIDEEN M.S., AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.AAMUHAJI, MIHRAS MANZIL, SIDDIBAIL, EDANAD VILLAGE, PUTHIGE, KASARAGOD.**
**7. ABID S.A., AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, CHIPPARA, THOATAYAR HOUSE, EDANAD VILLAGE, PUTHIGE, KASARAGOD.**
**8. NOUFAL T.M., AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, GULF MANZIL, MAYIPPADY, SHIRIBAGILU VILLAGE, KASARAGOD.**
**..2/-**
**Kss**
**..2....**
## **Crl.M.C.No.1657/2014**
## *** 9. UMESAN, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.CHATHUMANIYANI, THORANANM HOUSE, MUNNAD VILLAGE, KASARAGOD.**
***PETITIONER NO.9 DELETED FROM THE ARRAY OF PETITIONERS AS PER ORDER DTD. 25/03/2014 IN CRL.M.A.NO.2619/14 IN CRL.M.C.NO.1657/14.**
**BY ADV. SRI.S.JIJI**
## **RESPONDENT(S)/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT AND STATE:**
**------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------**
## **1. ZUHARA K.M.,AGED 41 YEARS,**
**W/O.ABDULLA, AABID MANZIL, CHEEPPARA, SHIRIBAGILU VILLAGE, MADHUR, KASARAGOD.(CW-1).**
## **2. STATE OF KERALA,**
- **REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.**
## ****ADDL.R3 IMPLEADED:**
**R3. K.M.ABDULL, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, AABID MANZIL, CHIPPARA, SHRIBAGILU VILLAGE, MADHUR, KASARAGOD, PIN - 671 125.**
**(**ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 01/04/2014 IN CRL.M.A.NO.2935/2014)**
**R1 & ADDL.R3 BY ADV. SMT.NIMA JACOB R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SAREENA GEORGE.P.**
**THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-04-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
**Kss**
## **Crl.M.C.No.1657/2014**
## **APPENDIX**
## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:**
**ANNEX.A1: FINAL REPORT IN CR.446/2011 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION FILED BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KASARAGOD. ANNEX.A2: AFFIDAVITS DTD. 20/02/2013 SWORN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ANNEX.A3: AFFIDAVITS DTD. 26/03/2013 SWORN BY THE ADDITIONAL 3RD RESPONDENT.**
**RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: N I L**
**/TRUE COPY/**
**Kss**
**P.S.TO JUDGE**
## **K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.**
................................................. Crl.M.C.No.1657 of 2014 .................................................. Dated this the 1[st] day of April, 2014.
## **O R D E R**
This petition is filed by accused Nos.1 to 15 in C.C.No.95/2012 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasaragod to quash the proceedings on the basis of the settlement under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure.
2. It is alleged in the petition that on 13.5.2011 at about 7.30 p.m, while the defacto complainant was resting in her house at Shribagilu village, the accused persons, who were leading a victory procession in connection with local body election, abused the defacto complainant and others and inflicted injuries to some of them and thereby they have committed the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 427, 286 and 294(b) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, Annexure A1 final report was filed and it was taken on file as C.C.No.95/2012 and pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasaragod. Now the matter has been settled between the petitioners and the 1[st] respondent
Crl.M.C.No.1657 of 2014 2
and additional third respondent, who are the defacto complainant and the other affected party and they do not want to prosecute the case. Since some of the offences are non compoundable in nature, they could not file application for compounding before the court below. No purpose will be served by allowing the prosecution to continue in view of the settlement. So, the petitioners have no other option except to approach this Court seeking the following relief:
It is therefore most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash Annexure A1 Final Report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.95/2012 of JFCM-I, Kasaragod as against the petitioners/accused persons in this petition, in the interest of justice.
3. Originally the defacto complainant alone was impleaded as the first respondent. Subsequently, as per the order in Crl.M.A.No.2935/2014, the husband of the defacto complainant, who is also an affected party in the incident, has been impleaded as the additional third respondent. Both the first respondent and the additional third respondent appeared through counsel and submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties due to intervention of the local people and
Crl.M.C.No.1657 of 2014
3
harmony has been restored in the society on account of the settlement. So they do not want to prosecute the case further. The counsel for the petitioners also submitted that in view of the settlement, no purpose will be served by allowing the prosecution to continue and conviction in such case is remote.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that except this case, there is no other case against the petitioners and they have no other criminal backgrounds as well but opposed the application.
5. It is an admitted fact that on the basis of the statement given by the defacto complainant namely the first respondent herein, a crime was registered against the petitioners alleging the offences under Sections 143, 147,148, 447,427, 286 and 294 (b) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, Annexure A1 final report was filed against the present petitioners and it was taken on file as C.C.No.95/2012 and that is pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasaragod. It is seen from the allegations in the final report that there was some incident happened when the victory procession of UDF supporters were passing through that area. Now the matter has been settled between the parties. In
Crl.M.C.No.1657 of 2014 4
fact, there was no personal enmity between the parties which resulted in the incident as well. On account of the settlement, harmony has been restored in the locality. The first respondent and the additional third respondent have filed affidavits stating that the matter has been settled due to intervention of local people and they do not want to prosecute the case any further and the relationship between the petitioners and the defacto complainant has been restored to the original position as well on account of the settlement. In view of the settlement, no purpose will be served by prosecuting the accused as they will not support the case of the prosecution and conviction in such cases will be remote.
## 6. Further in the decision reported in **Gian Singh v. State**
**of Punjab** (2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
“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 mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc., or the family disputes where
5
Crl.M.C.No.1657 of 2014
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. 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 the criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and 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 affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”
7. In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision and also considering the fact that the matter has been settled
Crl.M.C.No.1657 of 2014
6
between the parties and the petitioners have no criminal background and they are not accused in other cases as well and on account of the settlement, peace and harmony has been restored in the locality, no purpose will be served by proceeding with the case and conviction in such case will be remote, this Court feels that it is a fit case where power under Section 482 can be invoked to quash the proceedings to promote peace and harmony that has been restored in the locality on account of the settlement. So, the petition is allowed and further proceeding in C.C.No.95/2012 (Crime No.446/2011 of Kasaragod police station) pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasaragod as against the petitioners is quashed.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court for necessary further action.
## **Sd/K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.**
cl
**/true copy/**
**P.S to Judge**
