Saidalavi s/o Mammadu and others v. State of Kerala and AbooBakkar (Defacto Complainant)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/29TH ASWINA, 1938 Crl.MC.No. 6035 of 2016 () --------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 690/2015 of ADDL. D.C. & SESSIONS COURT - III, MANJERI DATED AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CP 22/2015 of J.M.F.C.,PARAPPANANGADI DATED PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED: --------------------- 1. SAIDALAVI S/O.MAMMADU, AGED 61 YEARS MACHINGAL HOUSE, PANTHARANGADI POST THRIKKULAM, PALLIPPADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676306. 2. HAMSA S/O.SAIDALAVI, AGED 32 YEARS MACHINGAL HOUSE,PALATHINGAL-PALLIPADI, PANTHARANGADI POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676306. 3. YAKOOB S/O.SAIDALAVI, AGED 37 YEARS MACHINGAL HOUSE, PANTHARANGADI POST THRIKKULAM, PALLIPPADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676306. 4. FAIZAL S/O.KUNHAHAMMAD, AGED 32 YEARS MACHINGAL HOUSE, PANTHARANGADI POST THRIKKULAM, PALLIPPADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676306. 5. SUBAIR S/O.KUNHIMUHAMMED, AGED 34 YEARS MACHINGAL HOUSE,PALATHINGAL-PALLIPADI, PANTHARANGADI POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676306. 6. ANEESH S/O.VELAYUDHAN, AGED 31 YEARS PALAMADATHIL HOUSE, PANTHARANGADI POST THRIKKULAM, PALLIPPADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN-676306. CONTD... **==> picture [23 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** 7. MOHAMMED NOUFAL S/O.USSAIN, AGED 26 YEARS MOOZHIKKAL HOUSE, PANTHARANGADI POST THRIKKULAM, PALLIPPADI MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676306. 8. NISHAD S/O.BEERAN, AGED 41 YEARS MOOZHIKKAL VEEDU, PANTHARANGADI POST PALLIPPADI-THRIKKULAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN-676306. 9. ABDUL RAHIM S/O.SAIDALAVI, AGED 23 YEARS, KUTTAMASSERY HOUSE, PALATHINGAL-PALLIPPADI, PANTHRANGADI POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676306. 10. SHIHABUDHEEN S/O.SAIDALAVI, AGED 26 YEARS, KUTTASSERY HOUSE, PALATHINGAL-PALLIPPADI PANTHARANGADI POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676306. 11. ABDUL MAJEED S/O.MOHAMMED, AGED 53 YEARS PANTHERA HOUSE, THRIKKULAM, PALATHINGAL, PANTHARANGADI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE TIRURANGADI POLICE STATION TIRURANGADI-676306 MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. ABOOBAKKAR AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMAD, POOCHENGAL KUNNATH, PANTHARANGADI POST THRIKKULAM, PALLIPPADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN-676306. R2 BY ADV. SRI.ARUN MATHEW VADAKKAN R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-102016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CONTD... **==> picture [23 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** Crl.MC.No. 6035 of 2016 () --------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- A1 TRUE COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE R2 AND NUMBERED AS CMP 100/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE JFCM, PARAPPANANGADI. A2 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT DT.12-1-2010 IN OS 17/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PARAPPANANGADI. A3 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DT.24-9-2015 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PARTIES. A4 AFFIDAVIT DT.22-8-2016 EXECUTED BY THE R2. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL ----------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE SKS **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J. ---------------------------------Crl. M.C. No. 6035 of 2016 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 21[st] day of October, 2016** ## **O R D E R** - 1.This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Code') has been preferred by the petitioners herein for quashing the proceedings pending against him as S.C. No. 690 of 2015 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge-III, Manjeri. In the said case, they stand indicted for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 308, r/w Section 149 of the IPC. - 2.The prosecution allegation is that, on 10.07.2011 at 5.00 am, the petitioners formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common object wrongfully restrained the 2[nd] respondent and thereafter assaulted him causing injuries. - 3.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the **Crl. M.C. No. 6035 of 2016** -2- petitioner, the 2[nd] respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor. It is submitted that there was a dispute concerning a pathway which led to the institution of O.S.No.117 of 2010 before the Court of the Munsiff, Parappanangadi. As an aftermath to the civil proceedings, several criminal cases happened to be registered against the rival parties. Finally, at the instance of mediators and well-wishers, all pending disputes were settled and the parties are living in peace and harmony. It is urged that the pendency of the criminal proceedings will fuel fresh disputes and is likely to disturb the amity between the parties. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the 2[nd] respondent relies on Annexure-A3 settlement agreement wherein both the parties have agreed that all pending civil and criminal disputes will be withdrawn. 4.Learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent refers to Annexure-A4 affidavit sworn to by him and submits that **Crl. M.C. No. 6035 of 2016** -3- no acrimony exists between the parties. According to the learned counsel, the 2[nd] respondent has no objection in quashing the proceedings. - 5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, this Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings. - 6.The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions has submitted that the disputes have been resolved and in view of Annexure-A4, the State has no serious objections in quashing the proceedings as it would bring about peace and harmony between the rival parties. - 7.In **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another** [2012 (10)SCC 303], the Apex Court has crystalised the position in respect of the powers vested in the High Court under S.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to quash criminal proceedings. It was held that the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, **Crl. M.C. No. 6035 of 2016** -4- is not limited to quashing proceedings within the ambit and scope of Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The three - Judge Bench in the above case, clearly expounded, that quashing of criminal proceedings under S.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, could also be based on settlements between private parties, and could also on a compromise between the offender and the victim. Only that, the above power did not extend to crimes against the society. It is also relevant to mention, that the jurisdiction vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for quashing criminal proceedings, was held to be exercisable in criminal cases having an overwhelming and predominatingly civil flavour, particularly offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership, or such like transactions. In all such cases, the parties should have resolved their entire dispute by themselves, mutually. Further, guidelines were issued by the Apex Court in **Narinder** **Crl. M.C. No. 6035 of 2016** -5- **Singh v. State of Punjab** [2014 (6) SCC 466] and recently in **Rajesh Kamath J. and Others v. Mohana Kurup and Others** [AIR 2016 SC 2452]. 8.I have considered the rival submissions and I have gone through the materials on record. The offence committed by the petitioners cannot be said to be grave and serious having ingredients of extreme mental depravity. It also does not appear that the offence in this case will have a serious impact on the society. More over, when the respondent No.2 has settled the matter, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and the continuation of the criminal case against the petitioners would be a futile exercise. Further more, settlement will augur well for the interest for the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony. 9.Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court will be well justified in invoking its extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of **Crl. M.C. No. 6035 of 2016** -6- the Code to quash the proceedings. In the result, this petition will stand allowed. S.C. No. 690 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Manjeri and all proceedings pursuant thereto are quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE** SKS //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE