P.K. NOUSHAD v. State of Kerala and C.M. MUJEEB RAHMAN

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** ## **MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2016/2ND JYAISHTA, 1938** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2786 of 2016 ()** **--------------------------SC.NO. 43/2016 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, HOSDURG CRIME NO. 624/2005 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION,KASARGOD DISTRICT** **-----------------------** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** ## **------------------------------------** **P.K.NOUSHAD, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.KUNJAMMED, CHITHARI SOUTH, CHITHARI VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADVS.SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR SRI.DILEEP D BHAT** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** **--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA,** **REP. BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, HOSDURG THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031.** **2. C.M. MUJEEB RAHMAN, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.ABDULLA, RESIDING AT C.M.HOUSE, SOUTH CHITHARI, CHITHARI VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN- 671 315.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SAREENA GEORGE R2 BY ADV. SMT.P.K.MINIMOLE** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2786 of 2016 ()** ## **---------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES: ---------------------------------------------** **ANNEX A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.624/2005 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION. ANNEX A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.624/2005 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION. ANNEX A3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.12.2010 IN S.C. NO.397/2007 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, HOSDURG ANNEX A4 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.12.2015 IN S.C. NO.35/2011 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, HOSDURG ANNEX A5 ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 28.04.2016 SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL ------------------------------------------------** **/TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE** **sts** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J. ================== Crl.M.C.No. 2786 of 2016 ==================** Dated this the 23[rd] day of May, 2016 ## **O R D E R** This petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) seeking invocation of powers of this court to quash pending Criminal Proceedings . 2. Crime No. 624 of 2005 was registered by the Hosdurg Police against the petitioner and five others herein under sections 143,147,148,324,308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of the statement given by the second respondent herein. 3. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the final police report before the learned Magistrate and the case was committed to the court of Sessions, Kasargod. 4. The second accused as well as the petitioner/5[th] accused did not appear and face the trial. The learned Sessions Court proceeded against accused Nos.1,3,4 and **Crl.M.C.No. 2786 of 2016** **2** 6 as per Annexure-A3 judgment dated 03.12.2010 came to the conclusion that the evidence by the prosecution would not enable the court to come to a finding of guilty against the accused. Consequently, accused numbers 1, 3, 4 and 6 were acquitted of the offence under Section 232 of the Code. 5. Later, the first accused surrendered and faced the trial . As per Annexure-A4 judgment dated 07.12.2015 in S.C No. 35 of 2011 , he was also acquitted of all charges under Section 232 of the Code. 6. According to the learned counsel the substratum of the case itself has been destroyed and it would not be in the interest of justice to proceed with the trial against the petitioner herein as it would be nothing but an exercise in futility. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would also submit that the petitioner has settled all disputes with the second respondent herein, who is the de-facto complainant. According to the learned counsel, the parties have decided to live in harmony. The second respondent/de-facto complainant has entered appearance **3** ## **Crl.M.C.No. 2786 of 2016** through counsel and it is submitted that the dispute has been amicably resolved with the object of maintaining peace and harmony. The second respondent has also sworn to an affidavit which is produced as Annexure-A5 wherein, wherein it has been asserted that he has no objection in allowing the reliefs sought for. 8. The learned public prosecutor was directed to obtain instructions from the Investigating officer and it is submitted that the state has no objection in acting on Annexure-A5 as it would promote peace and harmony . It is also submitted that the petitioner is not a person with any criminal antecedents . 9. It is thus borne out from the submissions made at the bar that the parties have amicably settled their disputes with their free will and without any kind of pressure, influence or coercion. The compromise, it is felt, is voluntarily and genuine and can be acted upon. Further in **Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police (2006 (1) KLT 552)** and also **Ashraf Kancheriyil v. State of Kerala (2011 (2) KHC 812)** it has been held that when substratum of the case is destroyed, there is no point in ## **Crl.M.C.No. 2786 of 2016** ## **4** pursuing with the prosecution as against the other accused. 10. The law with regard to the settlement of criminal disputes on the strength of an amicable resolution of the disputes between the parties is no more res integra. 11. **In Gian singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10** **SCC 303),** Apex Court has laid down that in 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. This view was reiterated in **Narinder singh v. State of Punjab. (2014) 6 SCC 466) and Yogendra Yadav and Others V State of Jharkhand and Another 2014 (9) SCC 653 .** 12. It was held that the 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. It was held that certain categories of cases involving heinous and ## **Crl.M.C.No. 2786 of 2016** **5** 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 as those offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. But those cases where the wrong is basically private or personnel in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute could be fittingly be quashed by this court taking into account the compromise between the offender and victim. In such cases the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused and the _de facto_ complainant to great oppression and prejudice 13. After having anxiously considered the submissions it is felt that it would be unfair and contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding . It would only tantamount to abuse of process of law to subject the parties to the ordeal of a protracted criminal proceeding despite the settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer. Settlement will augur well for the interest of the **6** ## **Crl.M.C.No. 2786 of 2016** community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony. Further the acquittal of the other accused in the crime on the basis of A 3 and A 4 persuades this court to consider the application favorably. Consequently, all further proceedings in S.C No. 43 of 2016 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Hosdurg, Kasargode which has arisen from Crime No.624 of 2005 of Hosdurg Police Station shall stand quashed. The petitioner/ accused is acquitted of all charges . Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, Judge** lsn