Safwan and others v. Edayadan Shihabudeen and State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** ## **MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2013/17TH ASHADHA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2777 of 2013** ## **-----------------------------------** ## **CC 20/2013 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MANJERI** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:** ## **------------------------------------** **1. SAFWAN, AGED 23 YEARS,** - **S/O.ABDU RAZAK, KARATTIYIL HOUSE, NAYAR BAZAR, CALICUT AIRPORT.P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **2. AMEERUDDEEN, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.MAMMOOSAN, CHOYAKKATT HOUSE, NAYAR BAZAR, CALICUT AIRPORT.P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **3. SHEMEER, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.VEERANKUTTY, MEPPALATHIL HOUSE, NAYAR BAZAR, CALICUT AIRPORT.P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **4. JOWHAR, AGED 27 YEARS,** - **S/O.KUNJAHAMMAD HAJI, PUTHUKULATHIL HOUSE, NAYAR BAZAR, CALICUT AIRPORT.P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **5. MUHAMMED MUSTAFA, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.SAYYED ALAVI, AMMANCHERI HOUSE, NAYAR BAZAR CALICUT AIRPORT.P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **6. SHOWKKATHALI, AGED 26 YEARS, S/OMAMUKKUTTY, KARATTIYIL HOUSE, NAYAR BAZAR, CALICUT AIRPORT.P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **7. SHARAFALI, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.RAZAK, KANIYARTHODI HOUSE, KODIMARAM, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **8. CHEMBAN SUBAIR, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.SAYYED ALAVI, TAYAKKOTT HOUSE, CALICUT AIRPORT.P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.P.M.RAFIQ** **PJ** **...2/-** **Crl.MC.No. 2777 of 2013** **..2..** **-----------------------------------** **/RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT-CW1 & STATE:** **----------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. EDAYADAN SHIHABUDEEN, AGED 33 YEARS S/O.HAMZA, IDAYADAN HOUSE, PUTHOOR.P.O. KOTTAKKAL.P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 676 503.** ## **2. STATE OF KERALA,** **REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 682 031.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.VIVEK.JOY.K R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **PJ** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2777 of 2013** ## **----------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-------------------------------------** ## **ANNEXURE A- TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.20/2013 OF THE COURT OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MANJERI.** **ANNEXURE B- THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN INFORMING THE FACTUM OF SETTLEMENT BY IST RESPONDENT/INJURED/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/CW1 WHO IS ALSO THE OWNER OF THE CAR ALLEGED TO BE DAMAGED IN THE INCIDENT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **---------------------------------------** **NIL.** **/ TRUE COPY /** **P.S.TO JUDGE** **PJ** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** **---------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.2777 of 2013 ----------------------------------------** Dated this the 8th 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 in C.C.No.20 of 2013 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,Manjeri which is a case instituted upon the police report [in Crime No.382 of 2012 of Karipur Police Station] for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 427 r/w 149 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure-A charge sheet and all further proceedings in C.C.No.20 of 2013 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Manjeri as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that on 18.07.2012 at about 12 hours, while the de facto complainant was coming from the airport driving the Tavera taxi car bearing registration number KL-53C-298 owned by him, the accused persons 1 to 8 formed themselves into unlawful assembly, armed with stones with the common object of committing the offence, stopped the vehicle and accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 pulled the de facto complainant out of his car, **Crl.M.C.No.2777 of 2013** 2 accused 3 and 5 hit on the face using hand, 6th accused slapped on the neck, 7th accused stamped on the body and the 8th accused hit and scratched on the body of the car causing loss to the tune of Rs.28,000/- to the de facto complainant and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 427 r/w Section 149 IPC. Now the case of the petitioners are that the matter is settled out of court between themselves and the de facto complainant who is the first respondent herein. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the first 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 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 first respondent who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondent submitted that the above respondent, who is the de facto 3 **Crl.M.C.No.2777 of 2013** 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. Annexure- B is the affidavit sworn into by the first respondent the de facto complainant. 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 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 427 r/w Section 149 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 the first 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 4 **Crl.M.C.No.2777 of 2013** 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 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_ 5 **Crl.M.C.No.2777 of 2013** _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 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 6 **Crl.M.C.No.2777 of 2013** relief as sought for. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing Annexure -A charge sheet and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No. 20/2013 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Manjeri. **V.K.MOHANAN Judge** mns/