Rameef and Others v. State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/14TH KARTHIKA, 1936** **Crl.MC.No. 6237 of 2014 () --------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 564/2014 of J.M.F.C.-II(FOREST OFFENCES),MANJERI CRIME NO. 447/2013 OF VAZHAKKAD POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED: -----------------------** ## **1. RAMEEF** **S/O.ASSAINAR, HASSERY HOUSE, OORNGATTIRI AMSOM DESOM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. SULAIMAN S/O.SALAM, PUTHANVEETIL VEEDU, OORNGATTIRI AMSOM DESOM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **3. MUHAMMEDKUTTY S/O.UNNI MUHAMMED, CHELAPURATH HOUSE, CHERUVADY KODIYATHOOR AMSOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.BABU S. NAIR SRI.K.RAKESH RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & INJURED: ----------------------------------------------------1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER VAZHAKKAD POLICE STATION - THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 31.** **2. SUBAIDA S/O.MUHAMMEDKUTTY, MAILANGOTTU VEEDU CHERUVAYOOR AMSOM, DESOM, KONDOTTY TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673 638.** **3. SHEIK MUHAMMED S/O.AHAMMEDKUTTY, MAILANGOTTU VEEDU, CHERUVAYOOR AMSOM DESOM, KONDOTTY TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN - 673 638.** **4. SHAFI S/O.SHEIK MUHAMMED, MAILANGOTTU VEEDU CHERUVAYOOR AMSOM, DESOM, KONDOTTY TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673 638. R2-4 BY ADV. SRI.R.RANJITH (K/489/2011) R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.R.GITHESH** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-11-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **Crl.MC.No. 6237 of 2014 () ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **------------------------** - **ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE IN CRIME NO. 447/2013 OF THE VAZHAKKAD POLICE STATION.** - **ANNEXURE B: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 25/09/2014 SWORN TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **ANNEXURE C: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 25/09/2014 SWORN TO BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **ANNEXURE D: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 25/09/2014 SWORN TO BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL** **------------------------** ## **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A TO JUDGE** **vdv** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ========================= Crl.M.C No.6237 of 2014 ============================ Dated this the 05[th] day of November, 2014** ## **ORDER** The petitioners herein are the accused in Crime No.447 of 2013 of Vazhakkad Police Station, registered for offences punishable under Sections 448, 341, 323, 354, 427 and 506(i) r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case is that on 06.09.2013 at about 17:00 hours at Cheruvayoor Karingaliparambath, the accused attacked respondents 3 to 5 in the house of A2, when the 2[nd] respondent pulled the maxi of the de facto complainant and assaulted the 3[rd] respondent. It is further alleged that by breaking the glass of the window, a loss of Rs.500/- is caused to the house of the 3[rd] respondent and also had intimidated the 4[th] respondent. The police after investigation submitted the impugned Annexure A final report/charge sheet in the impugned Crime No. 447 of 2013 of Vazhakkad Police Station. On the basis of the impugned Annexure A final report/charge sheet, the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - II (Forest Offences), Manjeri had taken cognizance of the case and has numbered the case as Calendar Crl.M.C No.6237 of 2014 2 Case, C.C No.564 of 2014 against the petitioners. It is stated that now the disputes between the petitioners and the contesting respondents 2 to 4 have been amicably settled and as they are neighbours, the prosecution further continued would only lead to disharmony of the relationship, which has been now restored and that it will be sheer wastage of precious time of the court and that there is no remote possibility for conviction in this case. The contesting respondents 2 to 4 have separately filed affidavits before this Court as Annexures B, C and D respectively on 25.09.2014 stating all these aspects and further stating therein that apart from the registration of the impugned crime number herein, viz. Crime No.447 of 2013 of Vazhakkad Police Station, the petitioners had initiated complaint against the contesting respondents which led to the registration of Crime No.454 of 2013 in which the contesting respondents are the accused and that the entire matters have been settled amicably through mediation out of court and that the relationship between the parties are now very good and that they have no further complaints against the petitioners and that the impugned criminal proceedings may be quashed by this Court as prayed in this Crl.M.C. It is in the light of these facts and circumstances Crl.M.C No.6237 of 2014 3 that the petitioners have filed the instant Crl.M.C seeking the prayer to quash the impugned Annexure A final report/charge sheet filed in the impugned Crime No.447 of 2013 of Vazhakkad Police Station, and all further proceedings arising therefrom in the interest of justice. 3. The Crl.M.C. has been admitted and Sri.R.Ranjith has taken notice for the respondents 2 to 4 and the learned Public Prosecutor has taken notice for the 1[st] respondent-State of Kerala. 4. Heard Sri.Babu.S.Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.R.Ranjith , learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4 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 impugned 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 Crl.M.C No.6237 of 2014 4 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. Sri.R.Ranjith, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4, has submitted on the basis of the specific instructions furnished by the respondents 2 to 4 that they have amicably settled the disputes with the petitioners and that they have 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 they have no grievance against them and that they 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 Crl.M.C No.6237 of 2014 5 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 learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4, it is clear to the court that the injured/victim/defacto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioners/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.. Crl.M.C No.6237 of 2014 6 ## 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 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. Crl.M.C No.6237 of 2014 7 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. 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 Crl.M.C No.6237 of 2014 8 supra, this Court is inclined to hold that the Crl.M.C. can be allowed by granting the prayers sought for. In the result, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. In the interest of justice, it is ordered that the impugned Annexure A final report/charge sheet filed in the impugned Crime No.447 of 2013 of Vazhakkad Police Station, which has led to the institution of C.C No.564 of 2014 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - II (Forest Offences), Manjeri and all further proceedings arising therefrom stand quashed. The petitioners shall produce certified copies of this order before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - II (Forest Offences), Manjeri as well as before the Station House Officer, Vazhakkad Police Station. Sd/- **ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE** vdv //True Copy// P.A to Judge