## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
**PRESENT:**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN**
**FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/24TH JYAISHTA 1935**
## **Crl.MC.No. 2390 of 2013 ()**
**--------------------------CC.NO.55/2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, SASTHAMCOTTA**
**--------------**
## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.3 & 4 :**
**---------------------------------------------------**
## **1. SAKEER HUSAIN, AGED 32 YEARS**
**S/O.MAHADHI MAMPATTA VADAKKATHIL VEEDU (RENTED HOUSE) KUNNEMUKKU SOUTH, PALACKAL MURI, THEVALAKKARA VILLAGE FROM KOTTAYIL VEEDU, KOZHIKODU MEKKU MURI AYANIVELIKULANGARA VILLAGE.**
## **2. JASMIN, AGED 28 YEARS**
**D/O.SALMATH BEEVI MAMPATTA VADAKKATHIL VEEDU (RENTED HOUSE) KUNNEMUKKU SOUTH PALACKAL MURI, THEVALAKKARA VILLAGE FROM KOTTAYIL VEEDU, KOZHIKODU MEKKU MURI AYANIVELIKULANGARA VILLAGE.**
## **BY ADV. SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR**
## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT :**
**-------------------------------------------------**
## **1. THE STATE OF KERALA**
**REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM.**
## **2. ASUMA BEEVI, AGED 50 YEARS**
**W/O.HIDROSS KUNJU, THUNDILPUTHENVEEDU HOUSE PALLISSERICKAL, SASTHAMKOTTA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.**
**R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S. HYMA R2 BY ADV. SRI. N.I. MUJEEB**
**THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
**Mn**
**...2/-**
**Crl.MC.No. 2390 of 2013 ()**
## **-------------------------------------**
## **APPENDIX**
## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :**
**-------------------------------------**
**ANNEXURE I: TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.283/2006 OF SASTHANCOTTA POLICE STATION.**
## **ANNEXURE II: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JFCM, SASTHAMCOTTA DATED 2/11/2012.**
**ANNEXURE III: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CC NO.1168/2006 OF JFCM, SASTHANCOTTA.**
**ANNEXURE IV: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 20/05/2012.**
## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL**
**--------------------------------------------------------**
## **//TRUE COPY//**
**P.A. TO JUDGE**
**Mn**
## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. -----------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.2390 of 2013 -------------------------------------------Dated this the 14[th] day of June, 2013**
## **ORDER**
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 Nos.3 & 4 in C.C.No.55 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Sasthamkotta which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No.283 of 2006 of Sasthamcotta Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 493, 420, 294(b) & 323 read with Section 34 of IPC with a prayer to quash Annexure-I Charge against the petitioners in C.C.No.No.55 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Sasthamkotta as the matter is settled out of court.
2. The prosecution case is that, the first accused, in furtherance of the common intention with accused Nos.2 to 5 made believe CW.1/the second respondent herein, who is the de facto complainant that she is lawfully married to the first
Crl.M.C.No.2390/2013
:-2-:
petitioner and had sexual intercourse with her in that belief with the knowledge that she is not lawfully married to him and on 03/12/2004 the first accused with the dishonest intention to deceive CW1 obtained `3,46,000/- from the de facto complainant by selling landed property and also obtained four sovereigns of gold. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that, out of 5 accused A5 is no more, accused Nos.1 and 2 faced trial in C.C.No.1168 of 2006 and by judgment dated 10/01/2013 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Sasthamcotta, they are acquitted. The remaining accused i.e., accused Nos.3 and 4 are the petitioners herein. It is the further case of the petitioner that the dispute is compromised.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the 2[nd] 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
Crl.M.C.No.2390/2013
:-3-:
of the proceedings in the above case is abuse of process of law and proceedings.
5. The learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondent submitted that the above respondent, who is the de facto complainant does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioners and she 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 which is marked as Annexure-IV affidavit. 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 under Sections 493, 420, 294(b) & 323 read with Section 34 of IPC which are more or less
Crl.M.C.No.2390/2013
:-4-:
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 2[nd] 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 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
Crl.M.C.No.2390/2013
:-5-:
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 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. Thus, I am of the view that, 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
Crl.M.C.No.2390/2013
:-6-:
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 relief as sought for.
In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing Annexure-I charge and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.55 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Sasthamkotta.
Sd/-
## **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE**
skj
//True copy//
P.A. to Judge
