:null

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/18TH MAGHA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 756 of 2017 () --------------------------** **CC 1539/2014 IN CRIME NO. 462/2012 OF TANUR POLICE STATION of THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,PARAPPANANGADI** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 6:-: ---------------------------------** ## **1. HAMSA KOYA,** **AGED 64 YEARS, PAREECHINTE PURACKAL HOUSE, OSSANKADAPPURAM, TANUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** ## **2. NOUSHAD,** **S/O.HAMSA KOYA, AGED 29 YEARS, PAREECHINTE PURACKAL HOUSE, OSSANKADAPPURAM, TANUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** ## **3. IMPICHIBEEVI** **W/O.HAMSA KOYA, AGED 56 YEARS, PAREECHINTE PURACKAL HOUSE, OSSANKADAPPURAM, TANUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** ## **4. MAIMOONA,** **SISTER OF HAMSA KOYA, AGED 41 YEARS, PAREECHINTE PURACKAL HOUSE, OSSANKADAPPURAM, TANUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** ## **5. RAHILA,** **W/O.RAZAK, AGED 28 YEARS, PAREECHINTE PURACKAL HOUSE, OSSANKADAPPURAM, TANUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** ## **6. NASEEMA,** - **W/O.SAJU, AGED 30 YEARS, PAREECHINTE PURACKAL HOUSE, OSSANKADAPPURAM, TANUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS** **EL** **Crl.MC.No. 756 of 2017 ()** ## **--------------------------** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** **----------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA,** - **REPRESENTED BY THE S.I. OF POLICE, TANUR THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **2. FOUSIYA,** - **D/O.KUNHAVA HAJI, AGED 26 YEARS, CHEPPANKADAVATH HOUSE, ELARAMKADAPPURAM, TANUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 302.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA R2 BY ADV. SRI.PRINSUN PHILIP** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON** - **07-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **Crl.MC.No. 756 of 2017 () --------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **----------------------ANNEXURE-I: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 5.9.2012 ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PARAPPANANGADI.** **ANNEXURE-II: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN C.C.NO.1539/2014/2012 ON THE FILES OF THE J.F.C.M. COURT, PARAPPANANGADI** **ANNEXURE-III: THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 22.1.2017 EXECUTED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS -----------------------** ## **NIL** ## **TRUE COPY** ## **P.S. TO JUDGE** **EL** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.756 of 2017** ## **----------------------------------------Dated this the 7[th] day of February, 2017** ## **O R D E R** - 1.This petition is filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' ) with a prayer to invoke the extraordinary inherent powers and to quash the pending criminal proceedings. - 2.On the basis of an FIR lodged by the 2[nd] respondent, Crime No.462 of 2012 of the Tanur Police Station was registered and investigation was taken up for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 294(b) read with 34 of the IPC, and on its completion final report has been laid before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The case was committed to the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parappanangadi and the same is pending as C.C.No.1539 of 2014. - 3.The prosecution allegation is that on 21.6.2012 at 5 p.m., Crl.M.C.756/2016 2 the petitioner herein had wrongfully restrained the 2[nd] respondent, abused and assaulted her. - 4.The proceedings are sought to be quashed on the basis of a settlement arrived at between the parties. The learned counsel appearing for the parties submits that in view of the resolution of the disputes , the proceedings before the criminal court is a futile exercise. Much reliance is placed on the affidavit sworn to by the 2[nd] respondent to buttress their submissions . - 5.The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions expresses her reservations in the matter. However it is submitted that the petitioners are not persons with criminal antecedents. - 6.I have considered the submissions. - 7.The position with regard to quashing of proceedings on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties is by now well settled. In **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab** - [(2012) 10 SCC 303] Apex Court has laid down that in Crl.M.C.756/2016 3 appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. It was observed as follows : _“61. 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 proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the 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 the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”_ 8.The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court ## in **Narinder singh v. State of Punjab** (2014) 6 SCC 466, the pertinent observations which are as under: _XXXXXXXXXXX_ _29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:_ _(i) ends of justice, or_ Crl.M.C.756/2016 4 _(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives._ _xxxxxxx_ _xxxxxxx_ 9.The offence committed by the petitioners cannot be said to be grave and serious having ingredients of extreme mental depravity. It also does not appear that the offence in this case will have a serious impact on the society. It is felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and secure the ends of justice. Even otherwise, persisting with the prosecution would be nothing but a waste of time as the prospects of conviction would be bleak. 10.Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court will be well justified in invoking its extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings. Crl.M.C.756/2016 5 In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-II final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.C.No.1539 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parappanangadi are quashed. **Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE** vps