Saifudeen, Jayan and Tojo v. State of Kerala and Jibin Jose

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** ## **FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/6TH ASHADHA, 1936`** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3089 of 2014 ()** **--------------------------CC.NO. 33/2011 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -II, KOLLAM CRIME NO. 925/2010 OF KOLLAM WEST POLICE STATION , KOLLAM DISTRICT** ## **-------------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 3:** **--------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. SAIFUDHEEN, AGED 37 YEARS,** - **S/O.SHAHUDEEN, ATHMALIL VEETIL, BHARATH NAGAR-5, THIRUMULLAVARAM CHERRY, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **2. JAYAN, AGED 38 YEARS,** - **S/O.SAHADEVAN, VILAYIL VEETIL, ASHAN JUNCTION, KUREEPPUZHA CHERRY, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE,** - **KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **3. TOJO, AGED 26 YEARS,S/O.YESUDASAN, 'SOUPARNIKA', KUREEPPUZHA CHERRY, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, (FROM CHIRST BHAVAN, PADAPPAKARA, MULAVANA VILLAGE),KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.V.DILEEP** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT :** **--------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **2. JIBIN JOSE, AGED 28 YEARS,** - **S/O.JOSPH, PUTHENPARAMBIL, VADAKKEMUKKU, MAMOODU CHERRY, KOTTAMKARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 006.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. P.MAYA R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR SRI.S.NAVAS** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3089 of 2014 ()** **---------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES: ---------------------------------------------ANNEX-A. TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.925/2010 OF KOLLAM-WEST POLICE STATION IN KOLLAM DISTRICT. ANNEX-B. TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.925/2010 OF KOLLAM-WEST POLICE STATION IN KOLLAM DISTRICT.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.S.TO.JUDGE** **sts** ## **K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.** ................................................. Crl.M.C.No.3089 of 2014 .................................................. Dated this the 27[th] day of June, 2014. ## **O R D E R** This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed by the accused in C.C.No.33/11 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kollam to quash the proceedings on the basis of a settlement under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioners were arrayed as accused 1 to 3 in Crime No.925/10 of Kollam West police station registered on the basis of the statement given by the second accused/defacto complainant alleging offences under Sections 323, 324, 294(b) and 506(ii) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, final report was filed and it was taken on file as C.C.No.33/2011 and pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kollam. In the meantime, the matter has been settled between the parties. On account of the settlement, there is no possibility of conviction. Since some of the offences are not compoundable in nature, they could not file application before the court. So 2 Crl.M.C.No.3089 of 2014 the petitioners have no other remedy except to approach this Court seeking the following relief: For these reasons, that may be allowed to be urged at the time of hearing, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash Annexure-B Final report/charge sheet in Crime No.925/2010 of Kollam West Police Station as it is an abuse of process of court and all subsequent proceedings pursuant to C.C.No.33/2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court-II, Kollam and pass such other order, as is deemed fit, to secure the ends of justice in this case. 3. The second respondent appeared though counsel and submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties and he has no objection in quashing the proceedings and he filed affidavit stating these facts. 4. The counsel for the petitioners also submitted that in view of the settlement, there is no possibility of conviction and so, he prayed for allowing the application. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on institutions, submitted that there is no other case against the petitioners, but opposed the application on the ground that grave offences have been incorporated. 6. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners were arrayed Crl.M.C.No.3089 of 2014 3 as accused 1 to 3 in Crime No.925/10 of Kollam West police station on the basis of a statement given by the second respondent alleging offence under Sections 323, 324, 294(b) and 506(ii) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also an admitted fact that after investigation, Annexure-B final report was filed and it is now pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kollam as C.C.No.33/2011. In the mean time, the mater has been settled between the parties due to intervention of well wishers of both parties. It is seen from the statement that they are neighbours and on account of the settlement, their relationship has been restored. Since the matter has been settled between the parties, no purpose will be served by proceeding with the case as conviction in such cases will be remote as they will not support the case of the prosecution and it will be only wastage of judicial time to proceed with the case. 7. Further in the decision reported in **Gian Singh v. State** **of Punjab** (2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: “But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the 4 Crl.M.C.No.3089 of 2014 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 compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to Crl.M.C.No.3089 of 2014 5 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 above decision and also considering the fact that it is a dispute between the neighbours, which resulted in registration of the crime and the same has been settled between parties and no purpose will be served by proceeding with the case, this Court feels that it is a fit case where power under Section 482 of the Code can be invoked to quash the proceedings to promote settlement and harmony that has been restored on account of the settlement and pendency of this case should not be a hurdle for the same. 9. So the application is allowed. Further proceedings in C.C.No.33/2011 (Crime No.925/2010 of Kollam West police station) pending against the petitioners before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kollam is hereby quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately. ## **Sd/-** ## **K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.** cl /true copy/ P.S to Judge Crl.M.C.No.3089 of 2014 6