Niyas P., Kunnumpra Yoonus, Kozhipalli Badarudheen v. State of Kerala and Ayisha

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/28TH ASWINA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 5657 of 2014 ()** **--------------------------CC.NO. 189/2012 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, MANJERI CRIME NO. 486/2011 OF KARIPUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM** ## **------------------** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3 :** **-----------------------------------------------------** ## **1. NIYAS P.,** **S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY, AGED 29 YEARS IRIKKENG VALAPPIL HOUSE, PENGADU RAMANATTUKARA (VIA), CHERUKAVU AMSOM, PUTHUKODE P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** ## **2. KUNNUMPRA YOONUS** **S/O.VEERANKUTTY, AGED 32 YEARS DARUL ALBAB HOUSE, PENGADU CHERUKAVU AMSOM, PUTHUKODE P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** ## **3. KOZHIPALLI BADARUDHEEN** **S/O.HYDER, AGED 36 YEARS, IRIKKENG VALAPPIL HOUSE, PENGADU MULANGUDA, CHERUKAVU AMSOM, PUTHUKODE P.O. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT :** **----------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA** **REPRESENTED BY THE S.I OF POLICE KARIPUR THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** ## **2. AYISHA,** **W/O.ALAVI, AGED 52 YEARS KOTTUVANTHARA HOUSE, CHERUKAVU AMSOM PENGADU DESOM, PUTHUKKODE P.O., KONDOTTY TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 673 638.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. R. GITHESH R2 BY ADV. SMT.LIJI KUTTAPPAN** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-10-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **Mn** **...2/-** **Crl.MC.No. 5657 of 2014 () ------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** |**PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES :**| |---| |**-------------------------------------------**| |**ANNEXURE-I:**<br>**COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME**| |**NO.486/2011 OF KARIPUR POLICE STATION.**| |**ANNEXURE-II:**<br>**COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.189/2012 ON THE**| |**FILES OF THE J.F.C.M. COURT-I, MANJERI.**| |**ANNEXURE-III:**<br>**THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 3.10.2014 EXECUTED**| |**BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.**| |**RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL**| |**------------------------------------------------------------**| **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE Mn** ## ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ========================= Crl.M.C No.5657 of 2014 ============================ Dated this the 20[th] day of October, 2014 ## ORDER The petitioners are the accused in Annexure I FIR in Crime No.486 of 2011 of Karipur Police Station. The police after investigation submitted the impugned Annexure II final report/charge sheet in the aforementioned Annexure I Crime No.486 of 2011 of Karipur Police Station, which has led to the institution of the Calendar Case C.C No.189 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I, Manjeri. The offences alleged are those under Sections 448, and 354 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The 2[nd] respondent is the de facto complainant in the impugned criminal proceedings. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that 20.12.2011 at about 19:45 hours the petitioners had trespassed into the house of the 2[nd] respondent and tried to outrage her modesty and that they have thereby committed the above said offences. It is stated that subsequently the differences of opinion between the parties have been amicably settled and the 2[nd] respondent is no longer interested Crl.M.C No.5657 of 2014 2 to proceed with the impugned criminal proceedings. The 2[nd] respondent has sworn to affidavit dated 03.10.2014, which is produced as Annexure III in this Crl.M.C, stating the above aspects wherein it is particularly stated that through mediation the matter has been settled out of court and that she has no further grievances against the petitioners and that she is not interested to prosecute as per the impugned criminal proceedings and that the impugned criminal proceedings against the petitioners may be quashed by this Court etc. It is in the background of these facts and circumstances that the aforementioned Crl.M.C has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned Annexure II final report/charge sheet in the impugned Annexure I FIR in Crime No.486 of 2011 of Karipur Police Station, which has led to the institution of C.C No.189 of 2012 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I, Manjeri and all further proceedings arising therefrom. 3. The Crl.M.C. has been admitted and Smt.Liji Kuttappan has taken notice for the 2[nd] respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor has taken notice for the 1[st] respondent-State of Kerala. Crl.M.C No.5657 of 2014 3 4. Heard Sri.U.K.Devidas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt.Liji Kuttappan, learned counsel appearing for 2[nd] respondent, and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1[st] respondent-State of Kerala. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners 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. Smt.Liji Kuttappan, the learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent has submitted on the basis of the specific instructions furnished by the 2[nd] respondent that the 2[nd] respondent has amicably settled the disputes with the petitioners Crl.M.C No.5657 of 2014 4 and that she has 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 petitioners as she has no grievance against them 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 offences alleged are 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 offences are involved, the real disputants to the controversy which has led to the impugned criminal proceedings, have actually arrived at an amicable settlement of the matter. From the submissions made by the Crl.M.C No.5657 of 2014 5 learned counsel for the 2[nd] 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.. ## 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 Crl.M.C No.5657 of 2014 6 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 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. Crl.M.C No.5657 of 2014 7 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 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 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. Crl.M.C No.5657 of 2014 8 In the result, the Crl.M.C. is allowed and the impugned Annexure II final report/charge sheet in the impugned Annexire I FIR in Crime No.486 of 2011 of Karipur Police Station which has led to the pendency of the Calendar Case C.C No.189 of 2012 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I, Manjeri and all further proceedings arising therefrom stand quashed. The petitioners shall produce certified copies of this order before the court below concerned as well as before the Station House Officer, Karipur Police Station. Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE vdv //True copy// P.A to Judge