Shanavas v. Nizamudeen and State of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2013/13TH ASHADHA, 1935 Crl.MC.No. 2718 of 2013 () --------------------------- SC 1200/2010 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM CRIME NO. 345/2009 OF KILIKOLLOOR POLICE STATION , KOLLAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ SHANAVAS, S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, PUTHENPURA KIZHAKKATHIL VEEDU KANNIMEL CHERRY, KILIKKOLLOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE: 1. NIZAMUDEEN, S/O.ABDUL AZIZ, KAITHARA VADAKATHIL, MADAN NADA ERAVIPURAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. ## 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BDY THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.RANJITH R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S. HYMA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 2718 of 2013 --------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- ANNEXURE-A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.345/2009 OF KILIKOLLOOR POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE-A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.345/2009 OF KILIKOLLOOR POLICE STATION. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL ks. ## TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **---------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.2718 of 2013 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 4[th] day of July, 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 petitioner, who is the accused in S.C.No.1200/2010 of the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Kollam, which is a case instituted upon the police report [in Crime No. 345 of 2009 of Kilikolloor Police Station] for the offences punishable under Sections 308 and 506 (ii) of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure A1 FIR and Annexure A2 final report in the above sessions case, as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that on account of enmity towards the de facto complainant, as the de facto complainant restrained the accused and man handled his wife, who is the sister of the de facto complainant, after 12 a.m. on 4.7.2009, the petitioner/ accused with an intention to cause death of the de facto ## **Crl.M.C.No.2718 of 2013** :-2-: complainant came to the house of de facto complainant and caused injury on his chest with a knife and threatened the wife of the de facto complainant with the knife and thereby committed the offence punishable under sections 308 and 506 (ii) of I.P.C. Now, the case of the petitioner is that the difference of opinion and the dispute among the parties, particularly the de facto complainant, who is none other than the brother in law of the petitioner, were settled out of court, as evident from the affidavit signed by the petitioner and the 1[st] respondent and counter signed by the respective counsel, which was filed along with the compounding petition, ie., Crl.M.A.No.5361/13. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the 1[st] 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 ## **Crl.M.C.No.2718 of 2013** :-3-: 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 1[st] 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 petitioner and he has no grievance against the petitioner. 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. ## **Crl.M.C.No.2718 of 2013** :-4-: 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 308 and 506 (ii) 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 1[st] 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 ## **Crl.M.C.No.2718 of 2013** :-5-: 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 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........” ## **Crl.M.C.No.2718 of 2013** :-6-: 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 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 ## **Crl.M.C.No.2718 of 2013** :-7-: Annexure A1 FIR and Annexure A2 final report and all further proceedings pending against the petitioner in S.C.No.1200/2010 of the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Kollam, in Crime No. 345 of 2009 of Kilikolloor Police Station. Sd/- **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** ami/ //True copy// P.A. to Judge