Sajeer Hussain, Saneer Hussain and Shahul Hameed v. State of Kerala and Latheef, Biju Joseph, Rasheed and Shiyad

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/21ST BHADRA, 1935** **Crl.MC.No. 4081 of 2013 ()** **---------------------------** **(CHARGE SHEET IN CC NO.122/2006 OF THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS II, ERNAKULAM CRIME NO. 201/1995 OF ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM)** **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 3:** **-------------------------------** **1. SAJEER HUSSAIN, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. HUSSAIN KHAN, VETTICKAL HOUSE, THEKKEKARA, ERATTUPETTA-686121, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** **2. SANEER HUSSAIN, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.HUSSAIN KHAN, VETTICKAL HOUSE, THEKKEKARA, ERATTUPETTA-686121, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** **3. SHAHUL HAMEED, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. HASSAN, KOCHALUPARAMBIL NADAKKAL KARA, ERATTUPETTA-686122, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.ASHIK K.MOHAMMED ALI** **RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KJERALA, ERANAKULAM (REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT)** **2. LATHEEF, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O. MOOSA, CHINNAPARAMBIL VEETTIL, THEKKEKARA, ERATTUPETTA VILLAGE, ERATTUPETTA686121, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** **3. BIJU JOSEPH, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. OUSEPH, PATTACKAL VEETTIL, SANTHIPURAM BHAGOM, KOTTAM KARA, KALADY VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683513.** **4. RASHEED, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O. PAREETH KHAN, KAYYA MAHAL, KARANAKODAM DESOM, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM-682017.** **5. SHIYAD, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. PAREETH KHAN, KAYYA MAHAL, KARANAKODAM DESOM, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM -686017.** **R2-R4 BY ADV. SRI.SHAIJAN C.GEORGE R5 BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY R5 BY ADV. SRI.ABDUL JALEEL.A R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. V.H.JASMINE.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-09-2013, ALONG WITH CRL.M.C. 4084/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **Crl.MC.No. 4081 of 2013 ()** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A1: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CC NO.671 OF 1996 OF THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS II, ERNAKULAM WHICH IS FILED IN CRIME NO.201 OF 1995 OF ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION AND PRESENTLY NUMBERED AS CC 122 OF 2006.** **ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **ANNEXURE A3: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A4: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A5: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 5TH RESONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL** // **TRUE COPY//** **PA TO JUDGE** **Scl.** ## **V.K. MOHANAN, J.** ## **-------------------------------------------Crl. M.C. Nos. 4081 & 4084 of 2013 -----------------------------------------Dated this the 12[th] day of September, 2013** ## **ORDER** As the above two cases are directed against the case and counter case and the parties to the above crimes are same and especially, when the dispute in the above two crimes are settled, the above two Crl. M.C. are heard together and being disposed by this common order. 2. Crl.M.C.No.4081 of 2013 is directed against Crime No.201/1995 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station, wherein the offences involved are under Sections 323, 324, 427 and 34 of IPC and in the above Crl.M.C., respondents 2 to 5 are respectively the de facto complainant and injured. Similarly, Crl.M.C.No.4084 of 2013 is directed against the case in Crime No.203 of 1995 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station, wherein also the offences involved are under Sections 279, 337, 324 r/w 34 of IPC. Respondents 12 and 13 in the above Crl.M.C are the de facto complainant and the injured, who are Crl. M.C. 4081 & 4084 of 2013 2 ## also the petitioners 1 and 2 in the other Crl.M.C. 3. The above case and counter case are registered connected with an occurrence occurred on 21.9.1995 and with respect to the same incident, different versions are given. However, as the disputes are settled amicably between the parties, I am not proposed to deal with the prosecution allegations in each cases. 4. In Crl.M.C. No.4081 of 2013, the second respondent is the de facto complainant and respondents 3 to 5, who are the injured are respectively sworn into annexures A2 to A5 affidavits stating that they have no objection in quashing the proceedings alleged against the petitioners therein, who are the accused in C.C.No.122 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ernakulam, which instituted a Crime No.201/1995 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station. Similarly, in Crl.M.C.No.4084 of 2013, the de facto complainant who is the second respondent and the injured/3[rd] respondent are also sworn into respectively Annexures 2 and 3 affidavits in the above case. Crl. M.C. 4081 & 4084 of 2013 3 5. So according to the petitioners in the above Crl. M.Cs, none of them wanted to prosecute each other and they want to drop the proceedings now pending 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 including Annexures-affidavits. 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 279, 323, 337, 324 & 427 r/w 34 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 petitioners, it appears to me that the 4 Crl. M.C. 4081 & 4084 of 2013 injured/the victim/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 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_ Crl. M.C. 4081 & 4084 of 2013 5 _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 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 6 Crl. M.C. 4081 & 4084 of 2013 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, these Crl.M.Cs are allowed, quashing Annexure A2 to A5 in Crl.M.C.No.4081 of 2013 and Annexures A2 and A3 in Crl.M.C.No.4084 of 2013 and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.126 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ernakulam in Crime No.201 & 203 of 1995 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station and all further proceedings thereto. Sd/- **V.K. MOHANAN, JUDGE.** Scl.