Nazar, Pareedy, Ashkar, and Kabeer v. State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/6TH ASHADHA, 1935** **Crl.MC.No. 2611 of 2013 () --------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC 336/2013 of J.M.F.C., KOLENCHERRY -------------** **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED** - **--------------------** **1. NAZAR, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.SAID MUHAMMED, PARAKUNNATH HOUSE, CHELAKKULAM.** **2. PAREEDY, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL RAHMAN, PARAKKUNMNATH HOUSE, KAVUNGAPARAMBU, PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **3. ASHKAR, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.SAID MUHAMMED PARAKKUNNATH HOUSE, KAVUNGAPARAMBU, CHELAKKULAM, PATTIMATTOM, VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **4. KABEER, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.SAID MUHAMMED PARAKKUNNATH HOUSE, KAVUNGAPARAMBU, CHELAKKULAM, PATTIMATTOM, VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SMT.J.SHEEBA MARIAM** **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:** - **-------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BYT THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **2. NAZEEMA, AGED 19 YEARS, W/O.ALSAR, AIMANAKUDY HOUSE, KAVUNGAPARAMBU, CHELAKKULAM, PATTIMATTOM, VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **3. ANEESA, AGED 23 YEARS, W/O.SHANAWAS, THAZHATHEMARIYIL HOUSE, KARAKKUNNAM, MULAVOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **4. BEEVI, AGED 49 YEARS, W/O.ABDUL KHADER, AIMANAKUDY HOUSE, CHELAKKULAM, PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** - **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.N.SURESH R2-R4 BY ADV. SRI.JAISON JOSEPH** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **VK** **Crl.MC.No. 2611 of 2013 ()** **---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **--------** **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES** **----------------------** **ANNEXURE A1. CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.105/13 OF KUNNATHUNADU POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE A2. AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES** **ANNEXURE A3. JOINT STATEMENT OF PETITIONERS AND THE RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4** **ANNEXURE A4. AFFIDAVIT OF 2ND RESPONDENT.** **ANNEXURE A5. AFFIDAVIT FO 3RD RESPONDENT.** **ANNEXURE A5. AFFIDAVIT OF 4TH RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURE : NIL** **---------------------** **/ TRUE COPY /** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **VK** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **----------------------------------------** ## **Crl.M.C.No. 2611 of 2013** **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 27[th] day of June, 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. 1 to 4 in C.C.No.336 of 2013 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kolencherry which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No. 105 of 2013 of Kunnathunadu Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 448,323,294(b) read with 34 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure A1 Final Report in Crime No. 105/13 of Kunnathunadu Police Station which is now numbered as C.C.No.336/13 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kolencherry as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation against the petitioners/accused in the above case is that they illegally trespassed into the house of the de Crl.M.C.No.2611 of 2013 **==> picture [21 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** facto complainant who is the second respondent and caused voluntarily hurt to the de facto complainant and other injured persons, who are respondents 3 and 4 and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 448,323,294(b) read with 34 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 respondents 2 to 4, who are the de facto complainant and the injured. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. To prove the settlement arrived between the parties, the petitioners produced Annexure A2 agreement and also produced Annexure A3 joint statement and Annexures A4 to A6 affidavits. 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. Crl.M.C.No.2611 of 2013 **==> picture [21 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** 5. The learned counsel for respondents 2 to 4, 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 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 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 448,323,294(b) read with 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 Crl.M.C.No.2611 of 2013 :-4-: parties to the dispute approached this Court after having amicably settled the matter. From the submission made by the counsel for the respondents, it appears to me that the de facto complainant and other injured persons have 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 v. reported in **Gian Singh 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 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_ Crl.M.C.No.2611 of 2013 :-5-: _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,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 Crl.M.C.No.2611 of 2013 :-6-: 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 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 Final Report in Crime No. 105/13 of Kunnathunadu Police Station which is now numbered as C.C.No.336/13 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kolencherry. MBS/ **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** Crl.M.C.No.2611 of 2013 :-7-: