Nishan, Anwar Sadath, Nazira, Basharullah and Beena v. State of Kerala and Amina

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA** **WEDNESDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 3RD BHADRA, 1943** **CRL.MC NO. 2083 OF 2021** **AGAINST C.C.NO.256/2021 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL** **MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ATTINGAL** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 1 TO 5:** - **1 NISHAN AGED 28 YEARS S/O. ANWAR SADATH, BINSALIM VEEDU, PUTHENTHOPE, CHITTATTUMUKKU P.O, KANIYAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **2 ANWAR SADATH AGED 50 YEARS** - **S/O. MOHAMMED SALIM, BINSALIM VEEDU, PUTHENTHOPE, CHITTATTUMUKKU P.O, KANIYAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **3 NAZEERA, W/O. ANWAR SADATH, BINSALIM VEEDU, PUTHENTHOPE, CHITTATTUMUKKU P.O, KANIYAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **4 BASHARULLAH, NABEEL VILLA, 16 MILE, THONNAKKAL VILLAGE, THONNAKKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM THALUK.** - **5 BEENA W/O. BASHARULLAH, NABEEL VILLA, 16 MILE, THONNAKKAL VILLAGE, THONNAKKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM THALUK.** **BY ADVS. S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI A.N.SHAJI (MURAMEL)** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNNAKULAM 682 031** **CRL.M.C.NO.2083 OF 2021** **-2-** **2 AMINA AGED 23 YEARS D/O. AMEER, KUNNIL VEEDU, 16 MILE, THONNAKKAL P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 317** **BY ADV AJITH KRISHNAN** **BY ADV.SEENA C., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **CRL.M.C.NO.2083 OF 2021** **-3-** ## **O R D E R** This Crl.M.C has been filed by the petitioners, who are accused Nos. 1 to 5 in C.C.No.256/2021 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal, seeking to quash the further proceedings in Annexure A private complaint and further proceedings in C.C.No.256/2021which was registered under Section 498A read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. Heard the counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the first respondent/State, and also the counsel for the 2[nd] respondent/defacto complainant. 3. According to the petitioner, the matter has been settled between the petitioners and the defacto complainant. Annexure A is the copy of the complaint. Annexure B is the affidavit sworn in by the defacto complainant, attested by the Notary Public. 4. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant also submitted that the dispute between the parties have been amicably settled and she has no further interest in continuing the proceedings against the petitioners. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the statement of the defacto complainant was taken and she also **CRL.M.C.NO.2083 OF 2021** **-4-** supported the averments in the petition that the case has been amicably settled with the petitioners. In Annexure B affidavit sworn in by the defacto complainant/second respondent, she has categorically stated that she has settled the matter with the petitioners pending before the Family Court as O.P.No.1612/2018 and M.C.No.153/2019 and also CC.No.256/2021 pending before JFCM-1 Attingal and further that she has no objection in acquitting the petitioners. The first petitioner and the defacto complainant are husband and wife. The dispute is purely personal in nature. 6. In **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another (2012 (10) SCC 303 : 2012 KHC 4530)** a three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has held that criminal cases having civil flavour and arising from criminal financial merchantile, civil, partnership, matrimony relating to dowry or family disputes where wrong is private or personal in nature can be quashed in view of the settlement between the parties. Paragraph 57 of the said decision is relevant in this context to be extracted which reads as follows :- “The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a **CRL.M.C.NO.2083 OF 2021** **-5-** 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 Section 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. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. 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, **CRL.M.C.NO.2083 OF 2021** **-6-** 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 other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 7. Here also parties are husband and wife. No public interest is involved and the issue is purely private in nature. Since the parties have amicably settled the matter, further continuance of the proceedings would be an empty formality with out anything ## **CRL.M.C.NO.2083 OF 2021** **-7-** achieved positively in the end. Therefore, I am of the view that it is only just and proper to quash Annexure-B private complaint and further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.256/2021 on the files of the JFCM-I, Attingal. It is ordered accordingly. In the result, this Crl.M.C. stands allowed. **Sd/M.R.ANITHA JUDGE** nkr/25.08.2021 ## **CRL.M.C.NO.2083 OF 2021** **-8-** ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2083/2021** **PETITIONER ANNEXURE** **ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS CRL.M.P NO. 6129/2019 ANNEXURE B NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT**