NIAZ S. v. REMYA M. NAIK and STATE OF KERALA

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** ## **FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/25TH ASWINA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 5868 of 2014 ()** **--------------------------CC 2040/2013 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PARAVOOR ------------** **PETITIONER/ACCUSED : ---------------------------------** **NIAZ S., AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.M.SALIM, NIZHA MANZIL, NEAR KOLLAM.S.N.COLLEGE JUNCTION, MUNDAKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 001 PRESENTLY RESIDING AT AASHIANA, ULIYAKOVIL, KOLLAM 691 019.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI** **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS :** **-----------------------------------------------** ## **1. REMYA M.NAIK, AGED 28 YEARS** **W/O.MAHESH.K.N, NO.709, PUSHPA HOUSE, E & F BLOCK, KUVEMPU NAGAR, MYSORE DISTRICT KARNATAKA STATE - 570 023.** **2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.R. GITHESH** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-10-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **bp** **Crl.MC.No. 5868 of 2014 () ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE A: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NUMBER 51/2012 OF RAILWAY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DATED 21/10/2012** **ANNEXURE B: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NUMBER 51/2012 OF RAILWAY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM.** ## **ANNEXURFE C: AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE IST RESPONDENT** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.** **---------------------------------------** ## **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUGE** **bp** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ========================= Crl.M.C No.5868 of 2014 ============================ Dated this the 17[th] day of October, 2014** ## **ORDER** The above Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C.) seeking the invocation of the inherent powers conferred on this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned Annexure B final report/charge sheet filed in the impugned Annexure A FIR in Crime No.51 of 2012 of Railway Police Station, Kollam, which has led to the pendency of C.C No.2040 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Paravur, Kollam and all further proceedings arising therefrom, in the interest of justice. The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C No.2040 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Paravur, Kollam district alleging offence punishable under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code. 1[st] respondent is the de facto complainant. The case arose out of the impugned Annexure A FIR in Crime No.51 of 2012 of Railway Police Crl.M.C No.5868 of 2014 2 Station, Kollam. After investigation, the police submitted the impugned Annexure B final report/charge sheet in the above said Annexure A crime, which has led to the pendency of C.C No.2040 of 2013 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Paravur, Kollam district for the above said offences. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that the petitioner while travelling in train No.T 16603 Mangalapuram - Thiruvananthapuram Maveli Express in coach No.S4 at berth No.25 had caught hold of the right hand of the de facto complainant/1[st] respondent, who was also travelling in the same coach in berth No.24. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner was due to get down at Kollam junction and had got up to take the luggage and in the process, his hand accidentally and inadvertently touched the right hand of the de facto complainant/1[st] respondent. It was due to this misunderstanding that the 1[st] respondent lodged the complaint alleging that when the 1[st] respondent and her relatives were travelling in the train, the petitioner had outraged her modesty by catching hold on her Crl.M.C No.5868 of 2014 3 right hand etc., it is averred. It is stated that now all the disputes between the petitioner and the 1[st] respondent have been amicably settled. The 2[nd] respondent has sworn to affidavit dated 10.10.2014 produced as Annexure C in this Crl.M.C stating that she does not wish to continue with the impugned criminal proceedings and that she would not like to proceed with the case due to the passage of time and that the matter has been amicably settled and that she has pardoned the accused and she has no objection against quashing the impugned criminal proceedings including the final report in the above said crime and all further proceedings arising therefrom. It is in the background of these facts and circumstances that the aforementioned Crl.M.C has been filed. 3. The Crl.M.C. has been admitted and Sri.Ajith Krishnan has taken notice for the 1[st] respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor has taken notice for the 2[nd] respondent-State of Kerala. Crl.M.C No.5868 of 2014 4 4. Heard Sri.S.Mohammed Al Rafi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Ajith Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 2[nd] respondent-State of Kearla. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the pendency of the aforementioned criminal proceedings, the matter has been settled amicably between the parties, which is resulted in the subject matter of the aforementioned crime/case and that the continuation of the proceedings in the above case/crime will cause miscarriage of justice to both parties as the real disputants to the case have arrived at an amicable settlement and any further continuation of the criminal proceedings will amount to sheer wastage of time and money and would unnecessarily strain the financial, administrative and financial resources of the State. 6. Sri.Ajith Krishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent has submitted on the basis of the specific instructions furnished by the 1[st] respondent that they have Crl.M.C No.5868 of 2014 5 amicably settled the disputes with the petitioners and that they have no objection in the quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings and that the complainant/victim/injured does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioner as she has no grievance against him and that she will not raise any dispute/compliant in future if the prayer for quashing the impugned final report is allowed. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor also was heard, who also has not raised any serious objections and submitted that this court may consider the prayer in this case in the light of the law well settled by the Apex Court in that regard. 8. After having carefully considered the submissions of the parties and after having perused the pleadings as well as the documents and materials placed in this matter, it can be seen that the offence alleged is more or less personal in nature and not much element of public interest is involved. The crucial aspect of the matter is that though such offence is involved, the real disputants to the controversy which has led to the impugned Crl.M.C No.5868 of 2014 6 criminal proceedings, have actually arrived at an amicable settlement of the matter. From the submissions made by the learned counsel for the 1[st] respondent, it is clear to the court that the injured/victim/defacto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioner/accused in the light of the settlement arrived at by them. In this connection, it is relevant to note the decision of the Apex Court in the case between _**Gian Singh** v._ _**State of Punjab**_ reported in 2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 160, para 61 = (2012) 10 SCC 303 = 2012(4) KLT 108(SC), wherein the Supreme Court has held as follows in para 61 thereof [ See SCC (Cri)]: _“61. 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.._ Crl.M.C No.5868 of 2014 7 ## 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,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........”_ ## In the decision reported in the case _**Yogendra Yadav &**_ ## _**others v. The State of Jharkhand & another**_ reported in 2014 ## (8) Scale 634 = III (2014) Current Criminal Reports CCR 426 ## (SC), the Apex Court has held as follows: _“When the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and, therefore, do not affect public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them”._ The Apex Court in the above case was dealing with a case involving offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 504 & 307 r/w Crl.M.C No.5868 of 2014 8 Section 34 Indian Penal Code. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it is seen further that the impugned criminal proceedings have arisen consequent to the personal disputes between the disputants and the disputes have been settled amicably between the parties. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to hold that in the light of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and particularly in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the principles laid down in the aforementioned decisions of the Apex Court will be squarely applicable in the present case. Moreover, since the real disputants to the controversy have amicably settled the disputes, which led to these impugned criminal proceedings, it is also the duty of the court to promote such settlement, instead of compelling the parties to go on with the dispute. It is also pertinent to note that since the matter is settled out of court, in the event of proceeding with the trial, there may not be any fruitful prosecution and the chances of conviction of the accused is rather negligible and therefore, the Crl.M.C No.5868 of 2014 9 net result of continuance of criminal proceedings would be sheer waste of judicial time rather meaningless and therefore would amount to abuse of the process of court proceedings in the larger sense. Hence following the decisions of the Apex Court cited supra, this Court is inclined to hold that the Crl.M.C. can be allowed by granting the prayers sought for. In the result, the Crl.M.C. is allowed and the impugned Annexure B final report/charge sheet in the impugned Annexure A FIR in Crime No.51 of 2012 of Railway Police Station, Kollam, which has led to the pendency of C.C No.2040 of 2013 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Paravur, Kollam and all further proceedings arising therefrom stand quashed. The petitioner shall produce certified copies of this order before the court below concerned as well as before the Station House Officer, Railway Police Station, Kollam. ## Sd/- **ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE.** vdv //True Copy// P.A to Judge