Shafeeq S.P. v. The State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** ## **WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/23RD SRAVANA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3401 of 2013 ()** ## **-----------------------------------** ## **AGAINST THE ORDER IN CP 82/2010 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURTI,HOSDRUG AGAINST THE ORDER\ IN LPC 82/2010 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I,HOSDRUG** **-------------** ## **PETITIONER(S)/1ST ACCUSED:** **---------------------------------------------** **SHAFEEQ.S.P. AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. MOHAMMED, NETTMMAL, ELAMBACHY.P.O. SOUTH TRIKARIPUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS SMT.P.K.PRIYA SRI.K.V.SREE VINAYAKAN SRI.K.M.MUHAMMED HUSSAIN** ## **COMPLAINANT(S)/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** **---------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING S.H.O. CHANDERA POLICE STATION.** **2. KUNHIRAMAN.T.M., AGED 53 YEARS,** **S/O. RAMAN THURUMUMBU, RESIDING AT PRASOON BHAVAN, ELAMBACHI.P.O., SOUTH TRIKARIPUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. PIN-671121.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.V.H.JASMINE R2 BY ADV. SRI.A.L.GEORGE** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **PJ** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3401 of 2013 () -----------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES** ## **-----------------------------------------** **ANX.A1. THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO. 363 OF 2008 CHANDERA POLICE STATION.** - **ANX.A2. THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 363 OF 2008 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION.** - **ANX.A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT (AD HOC-II, KASARAGIOD), IN SC NO. 376/2010 DATED 101-2012 ANX.A4 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW-1, THE 2ND RESPONDENT HEREIN, IN SC NO. 376/2010.** **ANX.A5. THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW-2(EYE WITNESS) IN SC NO. 376/2010.** **ANX.A6 THE NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT OF THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/2ND RESPONDENT DATED 12-8-2013.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** ## **---------------------------------------** **NIL.** ## **/ TRUE COPY /** ## **P.S. TO JUDGE** **PJ** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.3401 of 2013 ------------------------------Dated this the 14[th] day of August, 2013.** ## **O R D E R** 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 is the 1[st] accused in C.P.No.82/2010, which is pending as L.P.C.No.82/2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg, which is a case instituted upon the police report [in Crime No. 363/2008 of Chandera Police Station] for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 448, 427, 308 r/w 149 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure A1 FIR, Annexure A2 final report and L.P.C.No.82/2010, as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that the petitioner and other accused in the above crime at about 8 p.m. on 8.10.2008 at a place called Bakkirimukku, on **Crl.M.C.No.3401 of 2013** 2 account of political enmity, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and caused hurt to the de facto complainant and destroyed articles kept in the shop of the de facto complainant worth `15,000/-. During the pendency of the above case, the dispute is settled with the de facto complainant/2[nd] respondent who sworn into Annexure A6 affidavit. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the 2[nd] respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner 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 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 **Crl.M.C.No.3401 of 2013** 3 respondent submitted that the above respondent, who is the de facto complainant does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioner and he has no grievance against him. 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. 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 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 448, 427, 308 r/w 149 of I.P.C. which are more or less personal in nature and no public interest is involved. It is pertinent to note that though such **Crl.M.C.No.3401 of 2013** 4 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 petitioner/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 Gian Singh's case, 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.” **Crl.M.C.No.3401 of 2013** 5 ## 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. 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 the dispute. It is pertinent to note **Crl.M.C.No.3401 of 2013** 6 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 - A1 FIR and Annexure - A2 final report and all further proceedings in C.P.No.82/2010, which is pending as L.P.C.No.82/2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg, in Crime No. 363/2008 of Chandera Police Station. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** ami/ //True copy// P.A. to Judge