Shafi and others v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** ## **MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/3RD ASHADHA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2026 of 2013 ()** **--------------------------SC. NO.718/2012 OF DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM. CRIME NO. 605/2009 OF CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. ............** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 8:** **------------------------------------------------------** **1. SHAFI, S/O.FAZALUDEEN, AGED 23 YEARS, THANNIPPURATHU VEEDU, MADANNADA, POOKKODU MURI, CHADAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **2. MUHAMMED RAFFI @ RAFFI, S/O.FAZALUDEEN, AGED 21 YEARS, THANNIPPURATHU VEEDU, MADANNADA, POOKKODU MURI, CHADAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **3. SAJAD, S/O.SALAHUDEEN, SAJAD MANZIL (THODIYIL VEEDU), MADANNADA, POOKKODU MURI, CHADAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **4. FIROZ KHAN, S/O.ABDUL VAHID, AGED 27 YEARS, FIROZ BHAVAN, NEAR MADANNADA JUNCTION, MADANNADA WARD, CHADAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **5. PREMSHAD, S/O.SAINULABDEEN, AGED 33 YEARS, SHAMNAD MANZIL, MADANNADA, POOKKODU MURI, CHADAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **6. SHAMSUDEEN, S/O.PAVIRUKANNU, AGED 22 YEARS, SHARAFUDEEN MANZIL, MADANNADA, POOKKODU MURI, CHADAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **7. NAJEEM, S/O.FAZALUDEEN, AGED 22 YEARS, NELLIKUNNU PURATHU VEETTIL, POOKKODU MURI, CHADAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2026 of 2013** ## **8. SHAMEER, S/O.AMANULA, AGED 23 YEARS, SUBUHANA MANZIL, MADANNADA, POOKKODU MURI, CHADAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.S.ABHILASH, SRI.A.MUHAMMED RAFFI.** ## **RESPONDENTS/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE:** **-----------------------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA,** - **REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, 682 031.** **2. SHAN, S/O.SHAHUDEEN, AGED 25 YEARS, THANNIMOOTTIL MELATHIL HOUSE, KONDOTTUKONAM, ELAMPAZHANNUR MURI, KADAKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 506.** **3. SHAJI, S/O.SAINULABDEEN, AGED 27 YEARS, SHEEJA MANZIL, MANNAMPARAMBU MURI, CHADAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 303.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S. HYMA. R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.SIJU.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-06-2013, ALONG WITH CRMC No. 2028 OF 2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **rs.** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2026 of 2013** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-** **ANNEXURE A1: THE CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR WITH FIS IN CRIME NO.605/2009 OF CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE A2: THE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.605/2009 OF CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE A3: THE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A4: THE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.S. TO JUDGE.** **rs.** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No. 2026 of 2013** **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 24[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. 1 to 8 in Crime No. 605/2009 of Chadayamangalam Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 308 r/w 149 of I.P.C., with a prayer to quash the Annexure 1 FIR and Annexure 2 Final Report in Crime No.605/2009 of Chadayamangalam Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant to the same including S.C. No.718/2012 on the file of District & Sessions Court, Kollam as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that the accused Nos.1 to 8 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly on 1/9/2009 at about 3.15 p.m at Madanada junction and attacked the defacto complainant and another while they were travelling in an autorikshaw, using stick, jacky lever and stone. According to the prosecution the 2[nd] respondent herein sustained fracture to the tooth due to the attack and thereby committed the offence. The counsel for the **Crl.M.C. No. 2026 of 2013** 2 petitioner as well as the counsel for the 3[rd] respondent submitted that parties involved are their neighbors and now settled the matter. The learned P.P on instruction submitted that the injuries sustained by the defacto complainant is only abrasion and now, the case of the petitioners are that the matter is settled out of court. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, as well as the third respondent and also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that during the pendency of the above crime, the matter is settled amicably between the parties to the dispute which is the subject matter of the above crime. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above crime is abuse of process of law and proceedings. 5. The learned counsel for the third 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 he has no grievance against them. 6. I have carefully considered the above submissions **Crl.M.C. No. 2026 of 2013** 3 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 Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 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 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 third respondent, it appears to me that the 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 case, the Supreme Court has held as follows:- **Crl.M.C. No. 2026 of 2013** 4 _“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.._ ## 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_ **Crl.M.C. No. 2026 of 2013** 5 _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 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 6 ## **Crl.M.C. No. 2026 of 2013** Annexures -1 and 2 and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in Crime No.605/2009 of Chadayamangalam Police Station and all further proceedings thereto. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** AS