Najeeb and Muhammed v. Ramachandran and State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/19TH BHADRA, 1935** **Crl.MC.No. 3913 of 2013 () --------------------------CC 1716/2012 of JUDIIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,VADAKARA** **----** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS.3 AND 5:** **------------------------------** **1. NAJEEB, S/O.ALI, AGED 24 YEARS KUNMNUMMAL HOUSE, CHEMMARTHUR AMSOM, THODANNUR, VATAKARA TALUK.** **2. MUHAMMED, S/O.MOIDU, AGED 27 YEARS CHERUKIDA HOUSE, CHEMMARATUR AMSOM, THODANNUR, VATAKARA TALUK.** **BY ADV. SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL** **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:** **1. RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 38 YEARS S/O.CHATHU, KIZHAKKE THECHERI HOUSE, THODANNUR P.O.,VATAKARA TALUK.** **2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.** **R1 BY ADVS. SMT.P.A.ANEESHA SMT.P.A.ANEESHA R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-09-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **BP** **Crl.MC.No. 3913 of 2013 ()** ## **---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** |**PETITIONER(S)'**|**EXHIBITS**| |---|---| |**-----------------------**|| |**ANNEXURE I:**|**TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO.729/2009 OF**| ||**VATAKARA POLICE STATION.**| |**ANNEXURE II:**|**TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMEBNT IN C.C 154/2010 ON**| ||**THE FILE OF JFCM COURT, VATAKARA.**| |**ANNEXURE III:**|**TRUE COPY OF THE SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF 1ST**| ||**RESPONDENT.**| **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : -----------------------** ## **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** ## **BP** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** **------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.3913 of 2013 ------------------------------Dated this the 10[th] day of September, 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 petitioners, who are accused Nos.3 and 5 in C.C.No.1716/2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vatakara, which is a case instituted upon the police report [in Crime No.729/2009 of Vatakara Police Station] for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 r/w 149 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure I FIR and 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 4.10.2009 at 20.30 hours, at Thodannur, all the accused, in prosecution of their common object, after forming into an unlawful assembly, committed rioting armed with deadly **Crl.M.C.No.3913 of 2013** 2 weapons, wrongfully restrained CW1, and A1 beat up him with iron rod. When CW2 attempted to resist the attack of the accused, A2 to A5 beat up Cws.1 and 2 with their hands. Both Cws.1 and 2 sustained hurt. Hence all the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 r/w 149 of I.P.C. Now, the case of the petitioners is that the matter is settled out of court with the de facto complainant and consequently, though the trial in C.C.No.154/2010 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vatakara, was proceeded against A1 to A4, all the witnesses turned hostile including DW1, who launched Ext.P1 FIS and PW2-the injured and other occurrence witnesses also turned hostile, as evident by Annexure II judgment. It is the further case of the petitioners that the matter is settled with the 1[st] respondent/de facto complainant and he had sworn into Annexure III affidavit. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the 1[st] respondent. I have also heard the learned **Crl.M.C.No.3913 of 2013** 3 Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners 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] 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 petitioners 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 facts and circumstances of the case and especially in the light of the settlement arrived between the parties to the dispute, the learned Public **Crl.M.C.No.3913 of 2013** 4 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 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 r/w 149 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] respondent, it appears to me that the de facto complainant has 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:- **Crl.M.C.No.3913 of 2013** 5 “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 full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim........” **Crl.M.C.No.3913 of 2013** 6 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. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing Annexure-I FIR and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.1716/2012 of the Judicial First 7 ## **Crl.M.C.No.3913 of 2013** Class Magistrate Court, Vatakara [in Crime No.729/2009 of Vatakara Police Station]. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** ami/ //True copy// P.A. to Judge