Muhammed Rafeeq alias Mani v. State of Kerala and JAYADEVAN

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** ## **TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/28TH JYAISHTA 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2464 of 2013 ()** **----------------------------------CRIME NO. 687/2013 OF PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM ........** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:** **-----------------------------------------** **MUHAMMED RAFEEQ @ MANI S/O.MOITHUTTY, VARIYAMKUNNATH HOUSE, PONNIYAMKURRUSSI PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/STATE:** **-----------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA** - **REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM.** **2. JAYADEVAN, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.MADHAVAN, ANBALAKKAD HOUSE, P.O. PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTIRCT-676 014.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECTOR SMT.HYMA R2 BY ADV. SMT.M.B.DHANYA BABU** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **tss** **Crl.MC.No. 2464 of 2013 ()** **-------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES** **-----------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE-I.CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.687/2013 OF PERINTHALAMANNA POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE-AII:- ORIGINAL OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PEITTIONER AND 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 31/5/2013.** **ANNEXURE-III:-ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT SOWRN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 31/5/2013.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES** **--------------------------------------------** **NIL** **TRUE COPY** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE** **tss** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J** ## **--------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No. 2464 of 2013** ## **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 18[th ] day of June, 2013 ## **ORDER** 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 an accused in Crime No.687 of 2013 of Perinthalmanna Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 326 of I.P.C., with a prayer to quash Annexure-1 F.I.R and all further proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No.687 of 2013 of Perinthalmanna Police Station before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-1, Perinthalmanna as it is an abuse of process of Court and as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that on 13/5/2013 at 9.30 a.m the petitioner restrained the defacto complainant at Ponnanikrushu in Perinthalmana and inflicted injuries with a weapon like iron rod, as a result of which the left hand of the defacto complainant fractured and accordingly the petitioner is committed the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC. According to the petitioner the case is now settled between **Crl.M.C.No. 2464 of 2013** 2 the parties. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the second respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that during the pendency of the above crime, the matter is settled amicably between the parties to the dispute which is the subject matter of the above crime. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above crime is abuse of process of law and proceedings. 5. The learned counsel for the second respondent who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondent submitted that the above respondent, who is the de facto complainant does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioner and he has 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 **Crl.M.C.No. 2464 of 2013** 3 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 Sections 326 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 second respondent, it appears to me that the the de facto complainant has 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 which case, the Supreme Court has held as follows:- **Crl.M.C.No. 2464 of 2013** 4 _“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_ **Crl.M.C.No. 2464 of 2013** 5 _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_ **Crl.M.C.No. 2464 of 2013** 6 _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. Thus, I am of the view that 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 7 ## **Crl.M.C.No. 2464 of 2013** supra, this Criminal M.C. can be allowed granting the relief as sought for. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing Annexure-1 and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in Crime No. 687/2013 of Perinthalmanna Police Station and all further proceedings thereto. **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** AS