Said Muhammed v. Fathima and State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** **TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/4TH CHAITHRA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1693 of 2014 ()** **--------------------------CRIME NO. 454/2014 OF MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION. .......** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **-----------------------------------** **SAID MUHAMMED, S/O.MUHAMMAD HUSAIN, AGED 43 YEARS, THEMBILLIKUDIYIL HOUSE, EAST MARADI KARA, MARADI VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA.** **BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN.** ## **RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND STATE:** **--------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. FATHIMA, W/O.MUHAMMAD HUSAIN, AGED 65 YEARS, THEMBILLIKUDIYIL HOUSE, EAST MARADI KARA, MARADI VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA- 686 661.** ## **2. STATE OF KERALA,** **REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.BYJU KURIAKOSE. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE P.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **rs.** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1693 of 2014** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-** **ANNEXURE A. COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.454/2014 OF MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE B. AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 17.03.2014.** **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:-** **NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **rs.** ## K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------------------------------------Crl. M.C. No.1693 of 2014 --------------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 25[th] day of March, 2014 ## O R D E R This criminal miscellaneous case is field by the sole accused in Crime No.454/2014 of Muvattupuzha Police Station, to quash the proceedings on the basis of the settlement under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the 'Code'). 2. It is alleged in the petition that, the petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.454/2014 of Muvattupuzha Police Station, which was registered on the basis of the statement given by the first respondent, who is none other than the mother of the petitioner, originally alleging offences under Section 294(b), 326 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Annexure-A is the first information report so registered. During the course of investigation, the investigating officer filed a report deleting Section 323 2 ## Crl. M.C. No.1693 of 2014 of the Indian Penal Code and added Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code. The incident occurred due to some family dispute between the brothers. Now the matter has been settled between the parties and that has restored harmony between them. The first respondent mother is not interested in prosecuting her son in respect of the incident, in view of the settlement. No purpose will be served by proceeding with the investigation or prolong the case as well, in view of the settlement. Since, it is in the crime stage and also some of the offences are non-compoundable in nature, neither the police nor the court will drop the proceedings, so the petitioner has no other remedy, except to approach this court, seeking the following reliefs: i. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash all further proceedings against the petitioner herein in Crime No.454/2014 of Muvattupuzha Police Station in pursuance of Annexure-A FIR, and ii. To grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. 3. The first respondent appeared through 3 Crl. M.C. No.1693 of 2014 counsel and submitted that, the mater has been settled and in fact the incident occurred due to some mis-understanding between the mother and the son and when the son took the car, it happened to hit against the mother, which was not intentional. But it was misunderstood that, it was an intentional act and on that mis-understanding the crime has been registered. Now the entire family dispute has been settled and harmony has been restored in the family. So she has also filed an affidavit stating these facts. 4. The counsel for the petitioner also submitted that, in view of the settlement, no purpose will be served by allowing the investigation to continue or trial to be proceeded with and he prayed for allowing the application. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, as directed by this court, submitted that, except this case, there is no other case against the petitioner and the petitioner and the defacto-complainant are son and mother respectively. But since it is in the preliminary stage and Crl. M.C. No.1693 of 2014 4 Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code is also added, opposed the application for quashing it at this stage. 6. It is an admitted fact that, on the basis of the statement given by the first respondent, who is none other than the mother of the petitioner, Annexure-A first information report was registered as Crime No.454/2014 of Muvattupuzha Police Station, originally alleging offences under Section 294(b), 326 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Even in the first information statement itself, it was mentioned that, there was some dispute regarding the family property and on account of the same, there used to be dispute between her children, including the present petitioner and when she intervened, the incident happened. Even going by the allegations in the statement, it appears that it is not an intentional act, but it happened while he had taken the vehicle suddenly, after the altercation between the brother and the petitioner in respect of their property dispute and in that process, the vehicle happened 5 Crl. M.C. No.1693 of 2014 to hit against his mother, who was coming along the road. But however, earlier the crime registered only alleging offences under Section 294(b), 326 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and later Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code was deleted and added Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code. It cannot be said to be an incident affecting the public as such. But it is true that the mother sustained severe injuries on account of the act of her own son. Now the mother has prepared to forgive his son and does not want to proceed with the prosecution. Further it is also mentioned in the affidavit filed by the first respondent as Annexure-B that, the entire family dispute in respect of the family properties were also settled due to the intervention of mediators, which was root cause for this incident and cordial relationship between the brothers and the mother has been restored and they are living happily now. 7. In the decision reported in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012(4) KLT 108 (SC)],** it has been Crl. M.C. No.1693 of 2014 6 ## held that: “The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceedings 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 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 FIR may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case an no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. 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 other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of the criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and Crl. M.C. No.1693 of 2014 7 compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question (s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 8. In view of the dictum laid down in the decision cited (supra) and also considering the fact that, the basic reason for the incident was the family dispute in respect of division of property, which was now settled between the parties and the mother has shown the magnanimity of forgiving her son for the act committed by him on her in order to promote the relationship between the brothers and bring harmony in the family and also considering the fact that, the matter has been settled between the parties, no purpose will be served by allowing the investigation to continue or even ultimately final report is filed, chances of conviction is remote, as none of the prosecution witnesses including the defacto-complainant will support the prosecution and it will only be a wastage of judicial time. So under the circumstances, this court feels that, it is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of 8 Crl. M.C. No.1693 of 2014 the 'Code’ has to be invoked to quash the proceedings, though the investigation is in the primitive stage and in order to promote the harmony that has been restored in the family and the pendency of the case should not be a hurdle for the happy re-union of family members. So the application is allowed and a further proceeding in Crime No.454/2014 of Muvattupuzha Police Station, as against the petitioner is quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Muvattupuzha, so as to inform the same to the Muvattupuzha Police Station for necessary further action in this regard. Sd/K. Ramakrishnan, Judge // True Copy // P.A. to Judge ss