Sameer v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/7TH KARTHIKA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 5104 of 2014** **---------------------------------** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 704/2009 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MALAPPURAM, DATED 31-01-2012 CRIME NO. 185/2009 OF KOTTAKKAL POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM** **----------** ## **PETITIONER(S)/FIFTH ACCUSED:** **-----------------------------------------------** ## **SAMEER,** **S/O.MUHAMMED KUTTY, PEVUNGAL HOUSE, THENNALA AMSOM PARAMBILANGADI, AMBALAVATTAM, EDARIKODE P.O. MALPPURAM DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.P.RAJESH (KOTTAKKAL)** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/INJURED/STATE:** **---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. PALLIPPATTIL THOOMBAN JISHA, AGED 29 YEARS W/O.ILLIYAS, KALLINGAL HOUSE, KOTTAKKAL MALPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN: 676 503.** **2. IRSHAD, S/O.SAIDALAVI, AGED 23 YEARS KALLINGAL HOUSE, KOTTAKKAL, MALPPURAM DISTRICT PIN: 676 503.** **3. THANGAYATHIL AMI, W/O.JAFAR, AGED 33 YEARS KALLINGAL HOUSE, KOTTAKKAL, MALPPURAM DISTRICT PIN: 676 503.** **4. KODANAD FATHIMA, W/O.SHIHAB, AGED 34 YEARS KALLINGAL HOUSE, KOTTAKKAL, MALPPURAM DISTRICT PIN: 676 503.** **5. SUHARA, W/O.MARAKKAR, AGED 50 YEARS KALLINGAL HOUSE, KOTTAKKAL, MALPPURAM DISTRICT PIN: 676 503.** **PJ** **...2/-** **..2..** ## **Crl.MC.No. 5104 of 2014** **---------------------------------** **6. KAMBI VALAPPIL SALEENA, AGED 27 YEARS KALLINGAL HOUSE, KOTTAKKAL, MALPPURAM DISTRICT PIN: 676 503.** ## **7. JAFFAR, AGED 35 YEARS** - **S/O.MOIDUTTY, KALLINGAL HOUSE, KOTTAKKAL MALPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN: 676 503.** ## **8. STATE OF KERALA,** - **REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOTTAKKAL.** **R1 -R 7 BY ADV. SRI.JACOB E SIMON R8 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.R.GITHESH** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-10-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **PJ** ## **Crl.MC.No. 5104 of 2014** ## **----------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** ## **-------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE A1: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.185/2009 OF THE KOTTAKKAL POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE A2: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.C 704/2009 DATED 31/01/2012 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MALAPPURAM.** **ANNEXURE A3: AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT STATING THE SETTLEMENT OF ALL THE DISPUTES** **ANNEXURE A4: AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT STATING THE SETTLEMENT OF ALL THE DISPUTES** **ANNEXURE A5: AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT STATING THE SETTLEMENT OF ALL THE DISPUTES** **ANNEXURE A6: AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT STATING THE SETTLEMENT OF ALL THE DISPUTES** **ANNEXURE A7: AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT STATING THE SETTLEMENT OF ALL THE DISPUTES** **ANNEXURE A8: AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE SIXTH RESPONDENT STATING THE SETTLEMENT OF ALL THE DISPUTES** **ANNEXURE A9: AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE SEVENTH RESPONDENT STATING THE SETTLEMENT OF ALL THE DISPUTES** **ANNEXURE A10: AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE ONE MRS.FATHIMA FOR HER MINOR SON REJISHAL STATING THE SETTLEMENT OF ALL THE DISPUTES** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **---------------------------------------** **NIL.** **/ TRUE COPY /** ## **P.S. TO JUDGE** **PJ** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ----------------------------Crl.M.C.No.5104 Of 2014 --------------------------------Dated this the 29[th] day of October, 2014.** ## **O R D E R** The petitioner is the 5[th] accused in Crime No.185/2009 of Kottakkal Police Station registered for offence under Secs.143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 506(1) and 452 r/w 149 IPC. The impugned Annexure-A1 Final Report in the above said Crime was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram and that the case has been numbered as C.C.No.704/2009. All the other accused faced trial and acquitted as per the impugned Annexure-A2 judgment. Since the petitioner was not in station in connection with his job, the case against him was renumbered as C.C.No.40/2012 and it was transferred to long pending list as L.P.No.106/2013 on the file of the above said court, it is averred. It is stated that the matter has now been amicably settled between the petitioner and the respondents 1 to 7, who are the defacto complainants in this case. Respondents 1 to 7 have filed affidavits as per Annexure-A3 to A10 produced in this Crl.M.C stating the above aspect of settlement of disputes. In the said facts, it is stated ::2:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.5104 Of 2014** that the subject matter of the case has been amicably settled between the accused and the contesting respondents at the intervention of the mediators and that they have no grievance or complaint against the petitioner and they are not interested to press the prosecution and that they have no objection in termination of the impugned criminal proceedings pending as L.P.No.106/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram. It is in the background of these facts and circumstances, the instant Crl.M.C has been filed to quash the impugned Annexure-A1 Final Report/Charge Sheet filed in the impugned Crime No.185/2009 of Kottakkal Police Station and all further proceedings arising therefrom in the interest of justice. 2. The Crl.M.C has been admitted and Sri.Jacob Simon, Advocate, has taken notice for the respondent Nos.1 to 7 and the learned Public Prosecutor has taken notice for the 8[th] respondent-State of Kerala. 3. Heard Sri.P.Rajesh Kottakkal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Jacob Simon, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 7 and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 8[th] respondent. ::3:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.5104 Of 2014** 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the pendency of the aforementioned criminal proceedings, the matter has been settled amicably between the parties, and that the continuation of the proceedings in the above case/crime will cause miscarriage of justice to both parties as the real disputants to the controversy have arrived at an amicable settlement and any further continuation of the criminal proceedings will amount to sheer wastage of time and money and would unnecessarily strain the judicial, administrative and financial resources of the State. 5. Sri.Jacob Simon, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 7 has submitted on the basis of the specific instructions furnished by the respondent Nos.1 to 7 that the respondent Nos.1 to 7 have amicably settled the disputes with the petitioner and that they have no objection in the quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings and that the complainant/victim/injured does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioner as they have no grievance against them and that they will not raise any dispute/complaint in future if the prayer for quashing the impugned final report is allowed. ::4:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.5104 Of 2014** 6. The learned Public Prosecutor also was heard and submitted that this Court may consider the prayer in this case in the light of the law well settled by the Apex Court in that regard. 7. After having carefully considered the submissions of the parties and after having perused the pleadings as well as the documents and materials placed in this matter, it can be seen that the offences alleged are more or less personal in nature. The crucial aspect of the matter is that though such offences are involved, the real disputants to the controversy, which has led to the impugned criminal proceedings, have actually arrived at an amicable settlement of the matter. From the submissions made by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 7, it is clear to the Court that the injured/victim/defacto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioner/accused in the light of the settlement arrived at by them. 8. In this connection, it is relevant to note the decision of the Apex Court in the case between _**Gian Singh** v._ _**State of Punjab**_ reported in 2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 160, para 61 = (2012) 10 SCC 303 = 2012(4) KLT 108(SC), wherein the Supreme ::5:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.5104 Of 2014** ## Court has held as follows in para 61 thereof [ See SCC (Cri)]: _“61. 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 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 the decision reported in the case _**Yogendra Yadav & others**_ _**v. The State of Jharkhand & another**_ reported in 2014 (8) Scale 634 = III (2014) Current Criminal Reports CCR 426 (SC), the Apex Court has held as follows: ::6:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.5104 Of 2014** _“When the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and, therefore, do not affect public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them”._ The Apex Court in the above case was dealing with a case involving offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 504 & 307 r/w Section 34 Indian Penal Code. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it is seen further that the impugned criminal proceedings have arisen consequent to the personal disputes between the disputants and the disputes have been settled amicably between the parties. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to hold that in the light of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and particularly in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the principles laid down in the aforementioned decisions of the Apex Court will be squarely applicable in the present case. Moreover, since the real disputants to the controversy have amicably settled the disputes, which led to these impugned criminal proceedings, it is also the duty of the court to promote such settlement, instead of compelling the parties to go on with the dispute. It is also pertinent to note that since the matter is settled out of ::7:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.5104 Of 2014** court, in the event of proceeding with the trial, there may not be any fruitful prosecution and the chances of conviction of the accused is rather negligible and therefore, the net result of continuance of criminal proceedings would be sheer waste of judicial time rather meaningless and therefore would amount to abuse of the process of court proceedings in the larger sense. Hence following decisions of the Apex Court cited supra, this Court is inclined to hold that the Crl.M.C. can be allowed by granting the prayers sought for. In the result, Crl.M.C is allowed and the impugned Annexure-A1 Final Report in Crime No.185/2009 of Kottakkal Police Station which is now pending against the petitioner in L.P.No.106/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram and all further proceedings arising therefrom stand quashed. The petitioner shall produce certified copies of this order before the Station House Officer concerned as well as before jurisdictional Magistrate concerned. **ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.** bkn/-