Sayyad Midlaj Koya Thangal and others v. U.P.S. Jalaudheen Thangal and State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/2ND KARTHIKA, 1936** **Crl.MC.No. 6010 of 2014 ()** **--------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 2279/2013 of J.M.F.C.,KASARAGOD DATED CRIME NO. 730/2012 OF VIDYA NAGAR POLICE STATION , KASARGOD** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:** **------------------------------------------** **1. SAYYAD MIDLAJ KOYA THANGAL AGED 29 YEARS S/O.MURUTHULLAKOYATHANGAL** **R/AT PUTHIYAMALIYEKKAL HOUSE, PUTHUVASSERY, KOTAI ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **2. MURUTHULLAKOYA THANGAL AGED 29 YEARS R/AT PUTHIYAMALIYEKKAL HOUSE, PUTHUVASSERY, KOTAI ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** ## **3. NOUFEL** **S/O.MURUTHULLAKOYA THANGAL R/AT PUTHIYAMALIYEKKAL HOUSE, PUTHUVASSERY, KOTAI ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** ## **4. RUMAISA** **W/O.MURUTHULLAKOYA THANGAL** **R/AT PUTHIYAMALIYEKKAL HOUSE, PUTHUVASSERY, KOTAI ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON** **SMT.GOVINDU P.RENUKADEVI** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE:** **--------------------------------------------------------** **1. U.P.S. JALAUDHEEN THANGAL, AGED 55 YEARS S/O.CHERIYAKOYATHANGAL, R/AT MINI ESTATE RAHMANIYA NAGAR, MUTTATHODY VILLAGE AND POST KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT.** ## **2. STATE OF KERALA** - **REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.R.GITHESH R1 BY SRI.SIJU MATHEW** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-10-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ================== Crl.M.C.No. 6010 of 2014 ================== Dated this the 24[th] day of October, 2014 O R D E R The petitioners herein are the four accused in the impugned Crime No.730/2012 of Vidyanagar Police Station, Kasargod. The Police, after investigation submitted Annexure-A1 final report/charge sheet in the impugned crime, which led to the institution of C.C.No. 2279/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Kasargod. The gist of the prosecution allegations is that before and after 7.3.2012, the accused had suppressed some facts from the 1[st] respondent and married the 1[st] respondent's daughter and obtained dowry and thereby the petitioners committed offences punishable under Secs. 406, 417, 420 read with Sec. 34 of the IPC. It is stated that now the entire disputes between the petitioners and the 1[st] respondent have been settled out of court and that the 1[st] respondent and his daughter are not interested to continue with the impugned criminal proceedings. The 1[st] respondent, who is the defacto complainant, has sworn to affidavit dated 20.10.2014 stating the above aspects and also stating that the entire disputes between the petitioners and the 1[st] CRL.M.C.6010/14 - : 2 :- respondent have been amicably settled due to mediation of respectful persons and that the 1[st] respondent is not interested to continue with the impugned criminal proceedings and that he has no grievance against the petitioners and that he has no objection to quash the impugned criminal proceedings against the accused in the impugned Crime No.730/2012 of Vidyanagar Police Station, which has led to the institution of the Calendar Case, C.C.No. 2279/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's CourtI, Kasargod. It is in the background of these facts and circumstances, that the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned Annexure-A1 final report/charge sheet in the impugned Crime No.730/2012 of Vidyanagar Police Station, which has led to the institution of C.C.No. 2279/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's CourtI, Kasargod, and all further proceedings arising therefrom. 2. The Crl.M.C. has been admitted and Sri.Siju Mathew, Advocate has taken notice for the 1[st] respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor has taken notice for the 2[nd] respondent-State of Kerala. 3. Heard Sri.T.B.Shajimon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.Siju Mathew, learned counsel appearing for R1 CRL.M.C.6010/14 - : 3 :- and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 2[nd] respondentState. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that during the pendency of the aforementioned criminal proceedings, the matter has been settled amicably between the parties, which has resulted in the subject matter of the aforementioned crime/case 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 case 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. The learned counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent has submitted on the basis of the specific instructions furnished by the 1[st] respondent that the 1[st] respondent has amicably settled the disputes with the petitioners and that he has 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 petitioners as he has no grievance against the CRL.M.C.6010/14 - : 4 :- petitioners and that he will not raise any dispute/compliant in future if the prayer for quashing the impugned final report is allowed. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor also was heard, who also has not raised any serious objections 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 the 1[st] respondent, it is clear to the court that the injured/victim/defacto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioners/accused in the light of the settlement arrived at by them. 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 = CRL.M.C.6010/14 - : 5 :- ## 2012(4) KLT 108(SC), wherein the Supreme 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 predominatingly 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: “When the High Court is convinced that the offences are CRL.M.C.6010/14 - : 6 :- 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 Secs. 341, 323, 324, 504 & 307 r/w Sec. 34 Indian Penal Code. 8. 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 has 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 court, in the event of proceeding with the trial, there may not CRL.M.C.6010/14 - : 7 :- 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 wastage of judicial time rather meaningless and therefore would amount to abuse of the process of court proceedings in the larger sense. Hence, following the 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. 9. In the result, the Crl.M.C. is allowed and the impugned Annexure-AI final report/charge sheet in the impugned Crime No. 730/2012 of Vidyanagar Police Station, which has led to the pendency of Calendar Case, C.C.No. 2279/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Kasargod and all further proceedings arising therefrom stand quashed. The petitioners shall produce certified copies of this order before the court below concerned as well as before the Station House Officer, Vidyanagar Police Station. Sd/sdk+ ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.S. to Judge CRL.M.C.6010/14 - : 8 :-