Shameen and others v. State of Kerala and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** ## **MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/14TH SRAVANA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2951 of 2013 ()** ## **---------------------------** **CC. NO.105/2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, ATTINGAL. CRIME NO. 1430/2011 OF ATTINGAL POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **..........** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 13:** **---------------------------------------------------------** **1. SHAMEEN, S/O.HUSSAIN,** - **AGED 31 YEARS, SHEMI MANZIL, 18TH MILE, KORANI DESOM, EDAKKODU VILLAGE,** - **THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** **2. THAJUDEEN, S/O.ABDUL RAHMAN, AGED 25 YEARS, TAJMAHAL VEEDU, NAINAMKONAM, KIZHUVILAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** **3. ABDUL JABBAR, S/O.ABDUL RASHEED, AGED 35 YEARS, VATTAVILA VEEDU, CHITTATTINKKARA DESOM, KIZHUVILAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** **4. NAZEEMSHA, S/O.NAZEER, AGED 26 YEARS, N.N.MANZIL, 18TH MILE, CHITTATTINKARA DESOM, KIZHUVILAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** **5. SAJAD, S/O.MUHAMMED SALI,** - **AGED 36 YEARS, VATTAVILA VEEDU, CHITTATTINKARA DESOM, KIZHUVILAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** **6. RIYAZ, S/O.ABDUL RASHEED, AGED 24 YEARS, MANGALASSERY HOUSE, KORANY DESOM, EDAKKODU VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** **7. MUHAMMED, S/O.JALALUDHEEN, AGED 24 YEARS, THAJUNISA MANZIL, 18TH MILE, KURAKKADA DESOM, KIZHUVILAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** **8. AZEEM, S/O.FAZALUDEEN, AGED 29 YEARS, ANAZ MANZIL, PALAVALAVIL, 18TH MILE, EDAKKODU DESOM, KIZHUVILAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** **Crl.MC.No. 2951 of 2013** ## **9. SHABU, S/O.MUHAMMED KUNJU,** **AGED 34 YEARS, SHIBU MANZIL, 18TH MILE, EDAKKODU DESOM, KIZHUVILAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** **10. SABEER, S/O.BADARUDEEN, AGED 30 YEAR, PALAVILA VEEDU, PALAMALA, ANDOOR DESOM, KIZHUVILAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** **11. SAJEER @ NUVAN MUZALIYAR, S/O.ABUBACKER, AGED 37 YEARS, PALAVILA VEEDU, PALAMALA, ANDOOR DESOM, KIZHUVILAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** ## **12. ANILKUMAR @ SANKARAN,** - **S/O.BHASKARAN, AGED 35 YEARS, MELAKUNNIL VEEDU, ANDOOR DESOM, KIZHUVILAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** **13. ANAZ, S/O.RASHEED, AGED 34 YEARS, MUBARAK MANZIL, NELLAVILA JUNCTION, EDAKKODU DESOM, EDAKKODU VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.K.SIJU, SMT.CHITHRA.S.BABU.** ## **RESPONDENTS/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE:** **-----------------------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA,** - **REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ATTINGAL POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, 682 031.** ## **2. OMAR SHAREEF,** - **S/O.MUHAMMED HANEEFA, AGED 40 YEARS, TC 41/2157, SHEMI MANZIL, KALIPPAMKULAM, MANAKKADU VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 603.** ## **3. REGHUNATHAN @ RAVI,** - **S/O.EDWARD, AGED 38 YEARS, POOJA SADANAM, TC 11/153, KANAKA NAGAR, NANTHANKODU, KAWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003.** ## **4. SHAJU NAINAN,** - **S/O.NAINAN MUHAMMED, AGED 43 YEARS, SHEMI MANZIL, TC 2419/04, KALIPPAMKULAM, MANAKKADU VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 603.** **Crl.MC.No. 2951 of 2013** ## **5. RAJESH, S/O.RAVEENDRAN,** **AGED 31 YEARS, GOPI NIVAS, K.P.N.R.A 138, KARIKKODU LANE, KANJIRAMPARA DESOM, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 533.** **6. AJAYA KUMAR, S/O.SUKUMARAN, AGED 43 YEARS, TC 11/189, ANAND BHAVAN, BHAGAVATHY LANE, NANTHANKODE DESOM, KAWDIAR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 003.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.RAJESH VIJAYAN. R2 TO R6 BY ADVS. SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR, SRI.A.MUHAMMED RAFFI.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **rs.** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2951 of 2013** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-** ## **ANNEXURE 1. COPY OF THE FIR WITH FIS IN CRIME NO.1430/2011 OF ATTINGAL POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE 2. COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED IN CRIME NO.1430/2011 OF ATTINGAL POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE 3. COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE 4. COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE 5. COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE 6. COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE 7. COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:-** **NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE.** **rs.** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.2951 of 2013** ## **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 5[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 are accused in C.C.No.105/2013 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No. 1430/2011 of Attingal Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 427 & 326 of IPC of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure 1 FIR and Annexure 2 final report in crime No.1430/2011 of Attingal Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant to the same including C.C.No. 105/2013 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The gist of the allegation as per the FIR that around 100 unidentified persons trespassed into Revathy Auditorium at Korani and attacked the defacto complainant and others on 26/9/2011 at 2.30 p.m. while they were engaged in catering duty in the said auditorium due to previous animosity. Thus, according to the prosecution, the **Crl.M.C.No.2951 of 2013** 2 petitioners who are accused Nos. 1 to 13 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 427 & 326 of IPC. According to the petitioners, subsequent to the registration of the above crime, the matter is settled between the petitioners and the second respondent who is the defacto complainant and respondents 3 to 6 who are the injured. The second respondent, defacto complainant had sworn into Annexure-3 affidavit, similarly respondents 3 to 6 had sworn into Annexures-4 to 7 affidavits. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the second respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners 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 second respondent who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondent submitted that the above respondent, who is the **Crl.M.C.No.2951 of 2013** 3 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 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, 149, 323, 324, 427 & 326 of IPC., 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 second respondent, it appears to me that 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 4 ## **Crl.M.C.No.2951 of 2013** ## 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:- _“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_ **Crl.M.C.No.2951 of 2013** 5 _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. 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, 6 ## **Crl.M.C.No.2951 of 2013** 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 Annexures- 1 and 2 and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.105/2013 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Attingal and all further proceedings thereto. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** AS