Shabeer Kunhimooppan, Saheed Kunhimooppan and Jasim C. v. State of Kerala and Jameela K., Muhammed Shihab K. (Minor)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/13TH KARTHIKA, 1936** **Crl.MC.No. 5509 of 2014** **--------------------------------** **CP 71/2014 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PAYYANNUR CRIME NO. 113/2014 OF PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR** **.........** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 3:** **------------------------------------------------** **1. SHABEER KUNHIMOOPPAN, 28 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED AND SUHARA, KAVVAYI, PAYYANNUR VILLAGE, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **2. SAHEED KUNHIMOOPPAN, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.ABDULLA AND JAMEEL, K.M.HOUSE, KAVVAYI, PAYYANNUR VILLAGE, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **3. JASIM C., AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.KADHEEJA, KADHEEJA MANZIL, KAVAYI, PAYYANNUR VILLAGE KANNUR DISTRICT.(WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION).** **BY SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADVS. SRI.M.M.ANTO SRI.GEORGE MATHEWS** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND CW1 AND CW2:** **----------------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.** **2. JAMEELA K., AGED 49 YEARS,** - **W/O.HAMEED, KUTTOORILLATH HOUSE, VADIPPURAM P.O., KAVVAYI, PAYYANNUR VILLAGE, PIN-670 307.** **3. MUHAMMED SHIHAB K. (MINOR),** **REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND JAMEELA K., W/O.HAMEED KUTTOORILLATH HOUSE, VADIPPURAM, P.O.KAVVAYI, PAYYANNUR VILLAGE, (RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF PAYYANUR POLICE STATION).** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JITHESH R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.T.T.RAKESH** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-11-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **msv/** **Crl.MC.No. 5509 of 2014** ## **----------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:** **ANNEXURE-A.TRUE COPY OF THE FIR AND F.I. STATEMENT DATED 4/2/2014 IN CRIME NO.113/2014 OF PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE-B.TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 24/5/2014 IN CRIME NO.113/14 OF PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION.3** **ANNEXURE-C.TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 24/09/2014 AFFIRMED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:** ## **NIL** ## **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.S.TO JUDGE** Msv/ ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ----------------------------Crl.M.C.No.5509 Of 2014 --------------------------------Dated this the 4[th] day of November, 2014.** ## **O R D E R** The three petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1 to 3 in the impugned Annexure-A FIR in Crime No.113/2014 of Payyannur Police Station, Kannur District. The police after investigation has submitted Annexure-B Final Report/Charge Sheet on 24.5.2014 in the impugned Annexure-A Crime No.113/2014 of Payyannur Police Station which has led to the pendency of committal proceedings, C.P.No.71/2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur. The 2[nd] respondent is the defacto complainant and the 3[rd] respondent is CW2. The complaint of the 2[nd] respondent was that the accused Nos. 1 & 2 trespassed into her house alleging that her son 3[rd] respondent had taken photos of a bathing lady, who is their relative residing adjacent to the house of the defacto complainant, while he went there for taking water from their well and threatened that her house would be burned and destroyed and forcefully took the 3[rd] respondent for questioning to various places till the next day and assaulted ::2:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.5509 Of 2014** him with various weapons and caused injuries and the petitioners herein obstructed him from moving anywhere and a written complaint was filed alleging offences punishable under Secs.452, 506, 363, 342, 323, 24 r/w 34 IPC and Sec.23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000. It is stated that the petitioners and defacto complainant and her family members including CW2 (R3) are neighbours and friendly and that sudden provocation of the 3[rd] respondent by taking bathing scene of the lady related to the petitioners triggered the issue and the subsequent complaint by the 2[nd] respondent, it is averred. It is now stated that the disputes between the petitioners and respondents 2 & 3 has been settled due to intervention of well wishers and by the advice of the Jama Ath Committee and now the petitioners and their family and family of the 2[nd] respondent have no enmity between them and cordial relationship between those parties have been restored. Therefore, no useful purpose will be served in continuing the criminal proceedings. The 2[nd] respondent has filed affidavit dated 24.9.2014 produced as Annexure-C in this Crl.M.C stating the above aspects and further stating that the accused persons and the 2[nd] ::3:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.5509 Of 2014** respondent are neighbours and that the incident happened due to the sudden provocation and the matter has been settled by the intervention of the well wishers and Jama Ath Committee and she and her son has no grievance against the petitioners and both parties are living peacefully as neighbours and that they are in good terms with the accused and that they do not want the relationship frustrated and no purpose will be served in continuing the criminal proceedings against the accused and that the impugned criminal proceedings may be quashed etc. It is in the background of these facts and circumstance the instant crl.M.C has been filed seeking the prayer to quash the impugned criminal proceedings. 2. The Crl.M.C has been admitted and Sri.T.T.Rakesh, Advocate, has taken notice for the respondents 2 & 3 and the learned Public Prosecutor has taken notice for the 1[st] respondent-State of Kerala. 3. Heard Sri.Gracious Kuriakose, Senior Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.T.T.Rakesh, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 & 3 and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1[st] respondent. ::4:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.5509 Of 2014** 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, 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.T.T.Rakesh, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 & 3 has submitted on the basis of the specific instructions furnished by respondents 2 & 3 that respondents 2 & 3 have amicably settled the disputes with the petitioners 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 petitioners 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. ::5:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.5509 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 respondents 2 & 3, 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. 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 ::6:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.5509 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: _“When the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and, therefore, do not affect_ ::7:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.5509 Of 2014** _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 court, in the event of proceeding with the trial, there may not ::8:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.5509 Of 2014** 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-B Final Report/Charge Sheet in the impugned Annexure-A FIR in Crime No.13/2014 of Payyannur Police Station which has led to the institution of C.P.No.71/2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyanur and all further proceedings arising therefrom stand quashed. Petitioners shall produce certified copies of this order to the Station House Office concerned as well as to the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned. **ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.** bkn/-