Muneer v. State of Kerala and Muhammed Azharudheen E.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2013/10TH SRAVANA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3217 of 2013** **---------------------------------[CRIME NO. 51/2013 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION , KASARGOD] ..................** **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **-----------------------------------** **MUNEER, S/O.ABBAS MILITARY, AGED 40 YEARS, MILITARY HOUSE, CHANDRAGIRI POST, KALANAD (VIA)., KASARAGOD TALUK & DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.S.JIJI.** ## **RESPONDENT/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE:** **--------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. MUHAMMED AZHARUDHEEN .E, AGED 16 YEARS, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER S. IBRAHIMKUNJU, S/O.IBRAHIM, AGED 51 YEARS, SHABANA MANZIL,. VALLIYOD, POST KALANAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **R1 BY ADV. SMT. MINI.V.A, R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S. HYMA.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Prv.** ## **CRL.M.C. NO.3217/2013:** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:** **ANNEXURE A1: FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CR. 51/2013 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2: AFFIDAVIT DTD. 15/07/2013 SWORN BY THE R.1.** ## **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE.** **Prv.** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. -----------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.3217 of 2013 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 01[st] day of August, 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 the accused in Crime No.51 of 2013 of Bekal Police Station, Kasaragod for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 & 377 of IPC and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 with a prayer to quash Annexure-A1 F.I.R. and all further proceedings pending against the petitioner in Crime No.51 of 2013 of Bekal Police Station as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The prosecution allegation is that on 13/01/2013 at 7.45 p.m. the petitioner took the de facto complainant from Melparambain in a Motor Cycle to the bushes in a property near Thalangara Railway Bridge and removed his pants committed unnatural offence by inserting his penis in between Crl.M.C.No.3217 of 2013 :-2-: the thighs of the de facto complainant and when he resisted he was assaulted by hands and thus the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 & 377 of IPC and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Now the case of the petitioner is that, subsequent to the registration of the crime at the intervention of the mediators, the matter is settled between the petitioner and the de facto complainant and his father, who is the first respondent herein, who sworn into Annexure-A2 affidavit. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the 1[st] respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, during the pendency of the above crime, the dispute is settled amicably between the parties 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. Crl.M.C.No.3217 of 2013 :-3-: 5. The learned counsel for the 1[st] 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 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 including Annexure-A2 affidavit. 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 involved in the case, it can be seen that the offences involved in the above case are only under Sections 341, 323 & 377 of IPC and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 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 Crl.M.C.No.3217 of 2013 :-4-: dispute approached this Court after having amicably settled the matter. From the submission made by the counsel for the 1[st] respondent, it appears to me that 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 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 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:- Crl.M.C.No.3217 of 2013 :-5-: “......... 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 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 Crl.M.C.No.3217 of 2013 :-6-: 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. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing Annexure-A1 F.I.R. and all further proceedings pending against the petitioner in Crime No.51 of 2013 of Bekal Police Station, Kasaragod. ## **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** skj True copy P.A. to Judge