Naseer C.M. @ Mukri Nasser and Kunjimuhammed @ Aamu v. State of Kerala and Suhrabi and Fathimabee

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/7TH ASWINA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 5483 of 2014 ()** ## **--------------------------CRIME NO. 4/1991 OF PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT ----------------------** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.4 AND 5 :** **-------------------------------------------------------** **1. NASEER C.M. @ MUKRI NASSER, AGED 42 YEARS S/O.ABDUL KAREEM, CHELORAVALAPPIL HOUSE MATTOOL CENTRE P.O., PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT PIN-670302.** **2. KUNJIMUHAMMED @ AAMU, AGED 52 YEARS S/O.ABDURAHIMAN, PADINJARE CHELLAKKAR HOUSE MATTOOL CENTRE, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670302.** **BY ADV. SRI.E.C.BINEESH** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & CW 2 & 3 :** **-----------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA** - **REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** ## **2. SUHRABI, AGED 71 YEARS,** - **W/O.LATE MUHAMMED, MATTOOL CENTRE, MATTOOL P.O. PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670302.** **3. FATHIMABEE, AGED 51 YEARS D/O.LATE KUNJIMUHAMMED, MATTOOL CENTRE, MATTOOL P.O. PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670302.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.K. JAYAKUMAR R2 & R3 BY ADV. SMT.M.B.SHYNI** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Mn** **...2/-** ## **Crl.MC.No. 5483 of 2014 ()** ## **------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES :** **------------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE I: COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.53/1990 OF PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **ANNEXURE II: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16-1-2004 IN CC.NO. 90/1992 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PAYYANNUR.** **ANNEXURE III: COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTH AND DEATH, THALASSERY MUNICIPALITY DATED 6-2-2014.** **ANNEXURE IV: COPY OF THE COMPROMISE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PAYYANNUR IN CC.NO. 90/92.** **ANNEXURE V: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY RESPONDENT 2 DATED 10-3-2014.** **ANNEXURE VI: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY RESPONDENT 3 DATED 10-3-2014.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL** **--------------------------------------------------------** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **Mn** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **---------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No. 5483 of 2014** **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 29[th] day of September, 2014 ## **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. 4 and 5 in Crime No. 53/90 of Payyannur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143,447,427 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure-I charge sheet (charge sheet No.4/91) in Crime No.53/1990 of Payyannur Police Station, Kannur District as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that on 10.3.1990, the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object of committing wrongful loss to CW2, criminally trespassed into the property of CW2 in Re-survey No.200/2D at Mattool Junction and demolished the shop building of CW1 and thereby, caused wrongful loss of `25,000/- and thus, committed the offences punishable Crl.M.C.No.5483 of 2014 :-2-: under Sections 143,447,427 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. and now, the case of the petitioners is that the matter is settled out of court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the second and third respondents. 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 and third respondents, who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondents, submitted that the above respondent, who is the de facto complainant/victim/injured does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioners and they have 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 Crl.M.C.No.5483 of 2014 :-3-: 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 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 143,447,427 read with Section 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 second and third respondents, it appears to me that the injured/the victim/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 which case, 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_ ## Crl.M.C.No.5483 of 2014 ## :-4-: _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 predominatingly 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 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. 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 Crl.M.C.No.5483 of 2014 :-5-: 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 charge sheet (charge sheet No.4/91) in Crime No.53/1990 of Payyannur Police Station, Kannur District. **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** MBS/ ## Crl.M.C.No.5483 of 2014 :-6-: