Muhammed Haneefa v. Nasser, Abdul Sakariya and The State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2013/8TH SRAVANA, 1935** **Crl.MC.No. 3160 of 2013 () ---------------------------** **CC 1042/2013 of J.M.F.C.-II,HOSDRUG , KASARAGODE DIST.** **------------** **PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------** **MUHAMMED HANEEFA AGED 34 YEARS S/O.K.M.MOIDU, RESIDING AT RAHMATH HOUSE, JM ROAD KOTTIKULAM, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE** ## **RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT, INJURED & STATE:** **------------------------------------------------** **1. NASSER, AGED 31 YEARS S/O.PAKRU, ASEENA MANZIL, MASIGUDA PALLIKKARA.P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. PIN-673 522. 2. ABDUL SAKARIYA, AGED 29 YEARS S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, SAKARIYA MANZIL, SAKTHI NAGAR PALLIKKARA.P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. PIN-673 522. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM- PIN-682 031.** **R1 & 2 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.NIJOY R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **VK** **Crl.MC.No. 3160 of 2013 () ---------------------------** **APPENDIX --------** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **----------------------** **ANNEXURE A- THE CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR.** **ANNEXURE B- THE CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT (CHARGE SHEET)** **ANNEXURE B(1)- THE CERTIFIED COPY OF WOUND CERTIFICATES.** **ANNEXURE C- THE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWEARED BY THE IST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE NOTARY PUBLIC EVIDENCING SETTLEMENT.** **ANNEXURE D- THE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWEARED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE NOTARY PUBLIC EVIDENCING SETTLEMENT.** **ANNEXURE E- THE CERTIFIED COPY OF COMPOUNDING PETITION.** **ANNEXURE F- THE CERTIFIED COPY OF EVIDENCING OF PW-1 RECORDED IN CC NO.36/2011.** **ANNEXURE G- THE CERTIFIED COPY OF EVIDENCING OF PW-2 RECORDED IN CC NO.36/2011.** **ANNEXURE H- THE CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 5.6.2013 IN CC NO.36/2011.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL** **------------------------** **/ TRUE COPY /** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **VK** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.3160 of 2013 ------------------------------Dated this the 30[th] day of July, 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 petitioner, who is the sole accused in C.C.No.1042 of 2013 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Hosdurg, which is a case instituted upon the police report [in Crime No.676/2010 of Bekal Police Station] for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 427 r/w 34 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash all further proceedings in the above calendar case, as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that, on 25.9.2010 at about 10.30 p.m. at Kottikulam in Pallikkara village, the 1[st] accused in the case has wrongfully restrained CW1 and beaten him with iron rod and it is **Crl.M.C.No.3160 of 2013** 2 alleged that the 1[st] accused in the case has destroyed the rear glass of the car bearing registration number KL-60-B-8 and thus caused a loss of `5,000/- to CW1. It is further alleged that the 2[nd] accused in the case (the petitioner herein) has beaten CW2 with hands and thus the petitioner has committed the offence punishable under sections 341, 323, 324, 427 r/w 34 of IPC. Now, the case of the petitioner is that the matter is settled out of court and it is the further case of the petitioner that the other accused in the very same crime faced prosecution, which resulted in Annexure H judgment. In the light of the above submission made by the counsel for the petitioner, I have gone through Annexure H judgment and also Annexure C and Annexure D affidavits sworn into by the de facto complainant and the injured persons. I have also perused the compounding petition signed by the petitioner as well as the respondents and counter signed by their respective counsel. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as **Crl.M.C.No.3160 of 2013** 3 well as the 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner 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. 5. The learned counsel for the 1[st] and 2[nd] 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 petitioner and they have no grievance against him. 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 **Crl.M.C.No.3160 of 2013** 4 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 341, 323, 324, 427 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 the 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents, it appears to me that the injured and the de facto complainant have no further grievance against the petitioner/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 **Crl.M.C.No.3160 of 2013** 5 ## 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.” ## 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 **Crl.M.C.No.3160 of 2013** 6 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 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. **Crl.M.C.No.3160 of 2013** 7 In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing all further proceedings pending against the petitioner in C.C.No.1042 of 2013 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Hosdurg, in Crime No.676/2010 of Bekal Police Station. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** ami/ //True copy// P.A. to Judge