Rashid P. and others v. Shafeer and Sainaba and The State of Kerala

## IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/10TH BHADRA, 1936 Crl.MC.No. 5026 of 2014 () --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC 123/2014 of J.M.F.C.-II,HOSDRUG CRIME NO. 744/2013 OF NILESWAR POLICE STATION , KASARGOD ## PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED: --------------------- ## 1. RASHID.P DAYA MAHAL, NEAR EDATHARA JUMA MASJID, KOTTAPPURAM NEELESHWARAM, KASARAGOD DT. ## 2. SAWAD P YAQOOB MANZIL, NEAR EDATHARA JUMA MASJID, KOTTAPPURAM NEELESHWARAM, KASARAGOD DT. ## 3. MUBASH P DAYA MAHAL, NEAR EDATHARA JUMA MASJID, KOTTAPPURAM NEELESHWARAM, KASARAGOD DT. ## 4. NIYAS P HABEEB MANZIL, NEAR EDATHARA JUMA MASJIDKOTTAPPURAM NEELESHWARAM, KASARAGOD DT. 5. FAZIL A.G. NP HOUSE, NEAR EDATHARA JUMA MASJID KOTTAPPURAMNEELESHWARAM, KASARAGOD DT. 6. MOHAMMED RASHID E.K @ MAMA RASHID MAMA HOUSE, NEAR EDATHARA JUMA MASJID, KOTTAPPURAM NEELESHWARAM, KASARAGOD DT. 7. ASHIQUE E.K EDAKKAVIL HOUSE, THEKKEPURAM, KOTTAPPURAM NEELESHWARAM, KASARAGOD DT. 8. IMTHIAS E.K S/O.JAFFER SADIK, E.K.HOUSE, KOTTAPURAM NEELESHWARAM, KASARAGOD DT. 9. ABDUL RAZAK K S/O.ABDUL SALAM, M.K.HOUSE, KOTTAPURAM NEELESHWARAM, KASARAGOD DT. 10. SHARAFATH MUHAMMED S/O.MOHAMED KUNHI, KOTTAPURAM, NEELESHWARAM KASARAGOD DT. BY ADVS.SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH ## RESPONDENT(S)/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE: ------------------------------------------- 1. SHAFEER, AGED 27 YEARS - S/O.EBRAHIM, PUTHIYAPATILLATH HOUSE, KOTTAPURAM NEELESHWARAM, KASARAGOD - 671 314. 2. SAINABA, AGED 50 YEARS W/O.IBRAHIM, KOTTAPURAM, NEELESHWARAM KASARAGOD - 671 314. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM -682 031. BY SRI.C.H.ABDUL RASAC FOR R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. R. REMA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## Crl.MC.No. 5026 of 2014 () --------------------------- ## APPENDIX ## PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS -------------------- ANNEXURE-1: TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC NO.123/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE JFCM-II COURT, HOSDURG. ANNEXURE-2: TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS RECEIVED BY PETITIONERS NO.8 IN CC NO.57/2014 OF JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, KASARAGOD ANNEXURE-3: TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS RECEIVED BY PETITIONERS NO.9 INCC NO.57/2014 OF JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, KASARAGOD. ANNEXURE-4: TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS RECEIVED BY PETITIONERS NO.10 IN CC NO.57/2014 OF JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, KASARAGOD ANNEXURE-5: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE IST RESPONDENT ANNEXURE-6: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** **.......................................................... Crl.M.C.No. 5026 of 2014 .........................................................** Dated this the 1[st] day of September, 2014. ## **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 7 in C.C. No. 123/2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Hosdurg and accused Nos. 8 to 10 in C.C No. 57/2014 of the Juvenile Justice Board, Kasaragod which cases were instituted upon a police report in Crime No. 744/2013 of Neeleswaram Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452,323, 324 and and Sec. 354 read with Sec. 149 of IPC, with a prayer to quash all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in the above Cases, as the matter is settled out of court. Since the petitioners 8 to 10 were minors at the time of commission of the offence, the proceedings are pending before the Juvenile Justice Board, Kasaragod. Crl.M.C.No. 5026 of 2014 :-2-: 2. The allegations in the above case is that the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 10 in furtherance of their common intention to attack the de facto complainant and his wife, formed themselves an unlawful assembly and trespassed into the house of the Ist respondent and attacked them using dangerous weapons and outraged the modesty of the 2[nd] respondent, and, now the case of the petitioners is that the matter is settled out of Court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as respondents 1 and 2 /de facto complainant and his wife. 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 the subject matter of the above case. Therefore, continuation of the proceedings in the above case is an abuse of process of law and proceedings. 5. The learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 , who on the basis of specific instruction received from them, submitted that the above respondents, who are the de facto complainants does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioners and they have Crl.M.C.No. 5026 of 2014 :-3-: 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, 148, 452,323, 324 and and Sec. 354 read with Sec. 149 of IPC 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 respondents 1 and 2, it appears to me that the de facto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioners/accused in the light of the settlement arrived at between them. In this juncture, it is relevant to note the decision of the Honourable Apex Court reported in **Gian** Crl.M.C.No. 5026 of 2014 :-4-: **Singh** v. **State of Punjab** [2012(4) KLT 108(SC)], in which 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 and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed.._ ## It is further held as follows:- “...... _... But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly 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_ Crl.M.C.No. 5026 of 2014 :-5-: _full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim........”_ 8. 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 down in the above decision is applicable in the present case. Thus, I am of the view that 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 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 decision cited supra, this Criminal M.C. can be allowed granting the relief as sought for. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C. No. 123 Crl.M.C.No. 5026 of 2014 :-6-: of 2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Hosdurg and C.C. No. 57 of 2014 of Juvenile Justice Board, Kasaragod are quashed. . _Dated this the 1[st] day of September, 2014._ **Sd/- V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** **ani/** **/true copy/** **P.S. To Judge**