Shan Shabin, Hashim, Saifudeen, Nazharudeen, Hadjulla v. State of Kerala and Abdul Hameed

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2013/7TH SRAVANA, 1935** **Crl.MC.No. 3152 of 2013 ()** **-------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER IN Crl.MC 2405/2013 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 19/06/2013 CC 701/2011 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURTII,KOTTARAKKARA** **PETITIONER/ACCUSED :** - **------------------** **1. SHAN SHABIN AGED 28 YEARS S/O. LATE SHOUKATHALI, AMARAVILA VEED KANNANALLOOR P.O., KOLLAM-691576.** ## **2. HASHIM AGED 39 YEARS** **S/O. IBRAHIMKUTTY, VALIYAVILA VEED, KANNANALLOOR P.O.,KOLLAM-691576.** **3. SAIFUDEEN AGED 42 YEARS** **S/O. MUHAMMED KUNJU, VELIYILAZHIKAM VEED MAYYANAD P.O., KOTTIYAM VILLAGE, KOILLAM-691020.** **4. NAZHARUDEEN AGED 53 YEARS S/O. ABDUL MAJEED, SHAHUMANIYA MANZIL KANNANALLOOR P.O., KOLLAM-691576.** **5. HADJULLA AGED 60 YEARS S/O. ABUSALI, SUHANA MANZIL, VAKKAM MURI NEAR MOSQUE, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695308.** **BY ADV. SRI.S.M.ALTHAF** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT :** **1. STATE OF KERALA** - **REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THROUGH HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **2. ABDUL HAMEED, AGED 63 YEARS S/O. LATE MYTHEEN KUNJU, MEVARATHU VEED MELAPPEROOR MURI, KOTTUNKKAL VILLAGE, MANJAPPARA P.O. AYIROOR (VIA), KOLLAM-691533.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA R BY SRI.C.JAYACHANDRAN (KAYAMKULAM)** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **BP** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3152 of 2013 () ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-----------------------** **ANNEXURE A1: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO.609/1 OF CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION DATED 25/05/2011.** **ANNEXURE A2: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE J.F.C.M II, KOTTARAKKARA IN CRIME NO.609/10 DATED 18/07/2011.** **ANNEXURE A3: A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER WITH THE DAUGHTER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25/07/2012.** **ANNEXURE A4: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN CRL.M.C. 2405/2013.** **ANNEXURE A5: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL. -----------------------** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JDUGE** ## **BP** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. -----------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.3152 of 2013 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 29[th] day of July, 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 the accused in C.C.No.701 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kottarakkara which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No.609 of 2011 of Chadayamangalam Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 451, 294(b), 506(1), 427 & 323 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash all the further proceedings in C.C.No.701 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kottarakkara as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation of the prosecution in Annexure-A1 is that on 21/5/2011, at about 11 A.M. petitioners along with 10 others who can be identified by sight trespassed into the house of the 2[nd] respondent and used filthy language and destructed chairs and tables etc, thereby he sustained loss to Crl.M.C.No.3152 of 2013 :-2-: the extent of `10,000/-. It is alleged that the attempt of the petitioners was to take forcefully the daughter (wife of the 1[st] petitioner at the relevant time) of the de facto complainant who is living separately. Now, according to the petitioners, the matter is settled as per Annexure-A3 agreement. Annexure-A5 is the affidavit sworn into by the de facto complainant. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the 2[nd] 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 dispute is settled amicably between the parties 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 respondent submitted that the above respondent, who is the de facto Crl.M.C.No.3152 of 2013 :-3-: 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 including Annexure-A5 affidavit. 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, 451, 294(b), 506(1), 427 & 323 read with Section 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 2[nd] respondent, it appears to me that the de facto complainant has Crl.M.C.No.3152 of 2013 :-4-: 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 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 Crl.M.C.No.3152 of 2013 :-5-: 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 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 Crl.M.C.No.3152 of 2013 :-6-: 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 Annexures-A1 & A2 in Crime No.609 of 2011 of Chadayamangalam Police Station and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.701 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kottarakkara. ## **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** skj True copy P.A. to Judge