Shajahan v. State of Kerala and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** ## **THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/8TH KARTHIKA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 6137 of 2014 ()** ## **--------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 879/2013 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,KOLLAM CRIME NO. 275/2012 OF KUNDARA POLICE STATION , KOLLAM** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:** **------------------------------------------** **SHAJAHAN AGED 32 YEARS S/O.USUF, RESIDING AT SUNI COTTAGE, KOTTAMKARA KOLLAM.** **BY ADV. SRI.AJAYA KUMAR. G** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/INJURED:** **------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA** **REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **2. SHAHUL HAMEED, AGED 39 YEARS S/O.ABOOBAKKER KUNJU, IRSHAD MANZIL, CHANDANATHOPPU KOTTAMKARA, KOLLAM. PIN-691 014.** ## **3. RAHMATH BEEVI, AGED 42 YEARS** **D/O.MOIDEENKUTTY, IRSHAD MANZIL, CHANDANATHOPPU KOTTAMKARA, KOLLAM. FROM ILAKKARA KUNNUMALI CHEMMANITA.P.O., MALAPPURAM. PIN-676 505.** **R2 BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SARIN R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.R.GITHESH** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-10-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.MC.No. 6137 of 2014 () ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE 1- CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.275/2012 OF KUNDARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. ANNEXURE 2- TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DATED 23.9.2014. ANNEXURE 3- AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **---------------------------------------** **NIL.** sdk+ ///True copy/// P.S. to Judge ## ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ================== ## Crl.M.C.No. 6137 of 2014 ================== Dated this the 30[th] day of October, 2014 O R D E R This Criminal Miscellaneous Case seeking invocation of the inherent powers conferred on this Court as per Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash impugned Annexure-1 final report/charge sheet in Crime No.275/2012 of Kundara Police Station, Kollam district, which has led to the institution of the Sessions Case, S.C.No. 879/2013 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Kollam, and all further proceedings arising therefrom. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.275/2012 of Kundara Police Station, Kollam , alleging offences under Secs.452, 294(b), 323, 324, 308, 427 and 506(ii) of the IPC. After investigation, the Police submitted the impugned Annexure-1 final report/charge sheet in the aforementioned crime, which has led to the institution of the Sessions Case, S.C.No.879/2013 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Kollam. The gist of the allegations in this case is that the petitioner/accused is the son of the sister of the Crl.M.C.6137/14 - : 2 :- 2[nd] respondent and that there were some disputes between the parties herein over domestic issues and that due to the enmity for not giving money, the accused on 13.2.2012 at about 9.30 p.m. trespassed into the house of respondents 2 and 3 and threatened them showing a sword and that he attempted to attack them and that the 2[nd] respondent sustained cut injury to his finger and that when the 3[rd] respondent tried to obstruct him, the petitioner kicked her lower abdomen. It is stated that all the disputes between the parties have been amicably settled in the mediation held at Mediation Centre, Kollam and that respondents 2 and 3 have agreed to terminate all the legal proceedings against the petitioner, who is the accused in the aforementioned Crime No. 275/2012 of Kundara Police Station. Annexure-2 is the copy of the settlement arrived at on 23.9.2013, wherein inter alia, it is stipulated in clause 1(vi) of Annexure-2 that the parties have agreed to seek quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings in Crime No. 275/2012 of Kundara Police Station pending against the petitioner herein, by filing petition before this Court, etc. Annexure-3 is the affidavit dated 22.10.2014 sworn to by the 2[nd] respondent herein and Annexure-4 is the affidavit dated 27.10.2014 sworn to by the 3[rd] respondent Crl.M.C.6137/14 - : 3 :- herein. In these affidavits it is stated by the contesting respondents 2 and 3 that they have agreed to terminate all the legal proceedings against the petitioner herein, who is the accused in Crime No. 257/2012 of Kundara Police Station. It is further stated that they have no complaints against the accused in the above crime and that they have no objection in the quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings, which led to the filing of the final report in the above said crime and all further proceedings in S.C.No. 879/2013 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Kollam and that they have no surviving grievance against the petitioner herein. It is in the background of these facts and circumstances that this Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed with the aforementioned prayer. 2. The Crl.M.C. has been admitted and Sri.S.A.Saju has taken notice for the 2[nd] respondent, Sri.M.R.Sarin has taken notice for the 3[rd] respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor has taken notice for the 1[st] respondent-State of Kerala. 3. Heard Sri. Ajaya Kumar.G. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.S.A.Saju, learned counsel appearing for R2, Sri.M.R.Sarin, learned counsel for R-3 and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1[st] respondent-State. Crl.M.C.6137/14 - : 4 :- 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, 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 respondents 2 and have submitted on the basis of the specific instructions furnished by them that the respondents 2 and 3 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 she has no grievance against him and that she 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 Crl.M.C.6137/14 - : 5 :- 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 respondents 2 and 3, 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. 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 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 Crl.M.C.6137/14 - : 6 :- 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 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 Crl.M.C.6137/14 - : 7 :- offences under Secs. 341, 323, 324, 504 & 307 r/w Section 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 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 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 Crl.M.C.6137/14 - : 8 :- 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 the Crl.M.C. is allowed. The impugned Annexure1 final report/charge sheet in Crime No.275/2012 of Kundara Police Station, which has led to the institution of the Sessions Case, S.C.No.879/2013 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Kollam, and all further proceedings arising therefrom stand quashed. The petitioner shall produce certified copies of this order before the Station House officer, Kundara Police Station and the Assistant Sessions Court, Kollam. sdk+ Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.S. to Judge