Rinzad and others v. State of Kerala and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2013/27TH ASHADHA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2944 of 2013 ()** **---------------------------** **CP.NO. 26/2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -II,ATTINGAL CRIME NO. 61/2013 OF KILIMANOOR POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **--------------------------------------------** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 5:-** **------------------------------------------------------------** **1. RINZAD, S/O.ABDUL RASHEED, AGED 25 YEARS, RIYAZ MANZIL, NEAR PRVHS,KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** **2. PRAVITH, S/O.SIVANKUTTY, AGED 26 YEARS, FLAT NO.B4, RAJI NAGAR,SECRETARIAT WARD, THYCUADE VILLAGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** **3. MOHAN RAJ, S/O.MOHANAN, AGED 24 YEARS, JALAJA MANDIRAM, VELLALLOOR DESOM, VELLALLOOR VILLAGHE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** **4. AJAY, S/O.SAIMAN,AGED 33 YEARS, KAVUMPURAM G.K.BHAVAN, ATHIYANNUR DESOM, ATHIYANNUR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** **5. PRAVEEN, S/O.BABU,AGED 23 YEARS,** - **PINARAMMOODU VEEDU, KAIMANAM, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT** **BY ADVS.SRI.K.SIJU** **SMT.CHITHRA.S.BABU** ## **RESPONDENTS/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT AND STATE:-** **-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA,** - **REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KILIMANOOR POLICE STATION THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.PIN-682 031** **2. FOUSIYA, D/O.SHAJITHA BEEVI, AGED 20 YEARS, DARUL SALAM, PAPPALA,PAZHAYAKUNNUMMEL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.PIN-695 361** **3. SHAJITHA BEEVI, D/O.JAMEELA BEEVI,AGED 45 YEARS, DARUL SALAM, PAPPALA,PAZHAYAKUNNUMMEL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.PIN-695 361** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S.HYMA R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR** **SRI.A.MUHAMMED RAFFI** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** **Crl.MC.No. 2944 of 2013 () --------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** |**PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:**|**PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:**| |---|---| |**--------------------------------------------**|| |**ANNEX 1.**|**THE COPY OF FIR WITH FIS IN CRIME NO.61/2013 OF KILIMANOOR**| ||**POLICE STATION.**| |**ANNEX 2.**|**THE ATTESTED COPY OF FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE SUB**| ||**INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KILIMANOOR IN CRIME NO.61/2013.**| |**ANNEX 3.**|**THE COPY OF COMPROMISE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE FAMILY**| ||**COURT, ATTINGAL IN O.P.NO.1675/2013 BY THE 1ST PETITIONER AND**| ||**THE 2ND RESPONDENT.**| |**ANNEX 4.**|**THE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.**| |**ANNEX 5.**|**THE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.**| ## **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL** ## **/TRUE COPY/** ## **P.S.TO.JUDGE** **sts** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **----------------------------------------** ## **Crl.M.C.No. 2944 of 2013** **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 18[th] day of July, 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 5 in Crime No.61 of 2013 of Kilimanoor Police Station, now pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Attingal as C.P.No.26/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 109,120B,454,506(I),511 and 366 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure I FIR and Annexure 2 Final Report in Crime No.61/2013 of Kilimanoor Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant to the same including C.P.No.26/2013 on the file of the JFCM-II, Attingal as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that due to animosity of the first accused towards the de facto complainant, for withdrawing from the proposed marriage, after conducting ceremonies of engagement with him, the accused with intention to abduct the de facto complainant Crl.M.C.No.2944 of 2013 :-2-: conspired together and on 16.1.2013 while the de facto complainant was waiting for college bus at Pappala junction at about 8.10 a.m. approached her in a car bearing No.KL IBD 2903. When she escaped from the spot by boarding a bus to her college, the accused followed the bus and thereafter trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and threatened her mother to misuse the photographs of the de facto complainant and thereby the petitioners have committed the offences punishable under Sections 109,120B,454,506(I),511 and 366 of I.P.C. and now, the case of the petitioners is that the matter is settled out of court with the second respondent/the de facto complainant. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the second and third respondents. 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, the continuation of the proceedings in the above case is abuse Crl.M.C.No.2944 of 2013 :-3-: ## of process of law and proceedings. 5. The learned counsel for the second and third respondents, who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondents submitted that the above respondents, who are the de facto complainant and the mother of the de facto complainant do not intend to proceed any further against the petitioners and they have no grievance against them. 6. I have carefully considered the above submissions of the respective counsel. Annexures 4 and 5 are the affidavits filed by respondents 2 and 3. Besides that Annexure -3 is the compromise petition which is duly signed by counsel for the petitioners and the respondents. 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 Sections 109,120B,454,506(I),511 and 366 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 Crl.M.C.No.2944 of 2013 :-4-: 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 second and third respondents, 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 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,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_ Crl.M.C.No.2944 of 2013 :-5-: _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. 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 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 Annexure I FIR and Annexure 2 Final Report in Crime No.61/2013 of Kilimanoor Police Crl.M.C.No.2944 of 2013 **==> picture [21 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** Station and all further proceedings pursuant to the same including C.P.No.26/2013 on the file of the JFCM-II, Attingal. **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** MBS/