Rafeeque Rahman, ABDUL FASAL, SHAMSUDHEEN and BASHEER v. STATE OF KERALA and LATHEEF

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/28TH SRAVANA, 1935** **Crl.MC.No. 3446 of 2013 ()** ## **-------------------------------------** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN SC 388/2011 of IIND ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR** **-----------** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1-3 AND 5:** **-----------------------------------------------------** **1. RAFEEQUE RAHMAN,** - **S/O.SAINULABDHEEN, BISMILLAH MANZIL, THACHANADI, PUDUCODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** **2. ABDUL FASAL, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.SULAIMAN RAVUTHAR, URAVIN CHIRAKKAKAM HOUSE, THIRUVAZHIYODE, KAYARADI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** **3. SHAMSUDHEEN, AGED 26 YEARS,** - **S/O.IBRAHIM, PULIMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KAYARADI P.O., THIRUVAZHIYODE VILLAGE, CHITTOR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** ## **4. BASHEER, AGED 29 YEARS,** **S/O.MUHAMMED KHAN, VADAKKEPARAMBU HOUSE, KAYARADI P.O., KAYARADI VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD.** **BY ADVS.SRI.C.HARIKUMAR SMT.C.B.ANUROOPA** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** **--------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.** ## **2. LATHEEF,** - **S/O.KHADER, CHEEPPARA VALAPPIL HOUSE, THIRKKANAYA, ELANAD-680586.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SADANANDAN (SREEMOOLANAGARAM)** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **PJ** **Crl.MC.No. 3446 of 2013 () -------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' ANNEXURE** **ANNEXURE A1: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT NO.585 OF 2010 DATED 30/10/2010.** ## **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURE** **NIL.** **/ TRUE COPY /** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **PJ** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.3446 of 2013** ## **------------------------------Dated this the 19[th] day of August, 2013.** ## **O R D E R** The above petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') at the instance of the petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 in S.C.No.388 of 2011 of the II[nd] Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Thrissur, which is a case instituted upon the police report [in Crime No. 121 of 2010 of Pazhayannur Police Station] for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 308, 294(b) read with 149 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash all further proceedings in the above sessions case pursuant to Annexure A1 final report, as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that on 2.3.2010 at about 3 a.m., the accused nos.1 to 5 forming themselves into an unlawful assembly, the 1[st] accused as **Crl.M.C.No.3446 of 2013** 2 driver of KL 9 M 7835 number car and the other accused travelling in the car as passengers, while a procession organized by the de facto complainant was underway, willfully drove the car into the crowd resulting in the running amok by CW1 and other and they also uttered verbal abuses. Hence they are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 308, 294(b) read with 149 of IPC. Now, the case of the petitioners is that the matter is settled out of court and accordingly they have filed a compounding petition, ie., Crl.M.A.No.6453 of 2013 signed by the petitioners/accused as well as the 2[nd] respondent/de facto complainant and counter signed by their respective counsel. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the 2[nd] respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that during the pendency of the above case, the matter is settled amicably between the parties to the dispute which is ## **Crl.M.C.No.3446 of 2013** 3 the subject matter of the above case. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above case is abuse of process of law and proceedings. 5. The learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondent submitted that the above respondent, who is the de facto complainant does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioners and he has no grievance against them. 6. I have carefully considered the above submissions of the respective counsel. I have verified the documents and materials produced along with the above petition. In the given facts and circumstances of the case and especially in the light of the settlement arrived between the parties to the dispute, the learned Public Prosecutor has also no objection in allowing the above petition. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, it can be seen that the offences involved in the above case are only under Sections 143, 147, **Crl.M.C.No.3446 of 2013** 4 308, 294(b) read with 149 of I.P.C. which are more or less personal in nature and no public interest is involved. It is pertinent to note that though such offences are involved, the real parties to the dispute approached this Court after having amicably settled the matter. From the submission made by the counsel for the 2[nd] respondent, it appears to me that the de facto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioners/accused in the light of the settlement arrived by them. In this juncture, it is relevant to note the decision of the Honourable Apex Court reported in **Gian Singh** v. **State of Punjab** [2012(4) KLT 108(SC)]. In Gian Singh's case, the Supreme Court has held as follows:- “57. 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 **Crl.M.C.No.3446 of 2013** 5 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, mercandile, 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........” According to me, in the light of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and particularly in view of the settlement arrived in the present case, the dictum laid in the above decision is applicable in the present case. According to me, as the parties to the dispute settled the issues amicably, it is the duty of this Court to promote and encourage such settlement, instead of compelling the parties to go on with the dispute. It is pertinent to note that **Crl.M.C.No.3446 of 2013** 6 since the matter is settled out of court, in the event of proceeding with the trial, there would not have any fruitful prosecution resulting the conviction of the accused, rather the net result would be sheer waste of judicial time and abuse of process of the court and proceedings. Thus, according to me, following the decisions cited supra, this Criminal M.C. can be allowed granting the relief as sought for. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing all further proceedings in S.C.No.388 of 2011 of the II[nd] Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Thrissur, [in Crime No. 121 of 2010 of Pazhayannur Police Station] pursuant to Annexure A1 final report. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** ami/ //True copy// P.A. to Judge