Shareef Kaliyadukka v. State of Kerala & Defacto Complainant (CW1)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/30TH MAGHA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1208 of 2014 ()** **--------------------------LPC.NO. 6/2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -II,HOSDURG CRIME NO. 519/2010 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION , KASARGOD DISTRICT ----------------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED :** **----------------------------------------** **SHAREEF KALIYADUKKA, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. ASEEZ KALIYADUKKA, KALIYADUKKA COLONY, CHERUVA,PANAYAL VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.K.P.HARISH** **RESPONDENTS/STATE OF KERALA & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT(INJURED/CW1):** **---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA,** **REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.** ## **2. PRADEEP KUMAR, AGED 26 YEARS,** **S/O. KUNHIKANNAN, R/ AT DEVANPODICHAPARA, VATTATHOOR, PANAYAL P.O., PANAYAL VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 312.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S.HYMA R2 BY ADV. SRI.AJEESH K.SASI** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-02-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1208 of 2014 ()** **---------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:** **---------------------------------------------** **ANNEX A1 : COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DTD.12.9.2010 IN CRIME NO.519 OF 2010 AS NUMBERED AS CC NO.1091 OF 2010 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, HOSDURG. ANNEX A2 : COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DTD.10.2.2014 SIGNED BEFORE AN ADVOCATE NOTARY BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT NO.2.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL** ## **/TRUE COPY/** ## **P.A.TO.JUDGE** **sts** K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J. -----------------------------------------------------------------Crl. M.C. No.1208 of 2014 --------------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 19[th] day of February, 2014 ## O R D E R This criminal miscellaneous case is filed by the petitioner to quash the proceedings in L.P.C.No.6/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Hosdurg, on the basis of the composition entered into between the petitioner and the defacto-complainant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the 'Code'). 2. It is alleged in the petition that, the petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.519/2010 of Bekal Police Station. The case was registered on the basis of the statement given by the 2[nd] respondent as defactocomplainant, against the petitioner, alleging offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, final report was filed and it was taken on the file as C.C.No.1091/2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Hosdurg. Since the petitioner was Crl. M.C. No.1208 of 2014 2 absconding, after completing the procedure the case was transferred to the register of long pending cases and it is now pending before that court as L.P.C. No.6/2013. In the meantime, the petitioner settled the matter with the defacto-complainant. Now there is no dispute between the petitioner and the defacto-complainant. The defactocomplainant does not want to proceed with the prosecution. Since the offence alleged is non-compoundable in nature, the same cannot be compounded before the court below. So the petitioner has no other option, but to approach this court under Section 482 of the 'Code'. Hence the petition is filed by the petitioner, seeking the following relief: “In view of the above grounds and the grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash all further proceedings pending against the petitioner in LPC No.6/2013 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Hosdurg.” 3. The 2[nd] respondent appeared through counsel and submitted that the matter has been settled and the defacto-complainant filed an affidavit to that effect. He does not want to proceed against the petitioner. Crl. M.C. No.1208 of 2014 3 4. Learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that, there was a case against the petitioner in the year 2008, in which he was acquitted after trial. There is no other crime against the petitioner pending now. 5. It is an admitted fact that, in this case, crime No.519/2010 was registered on the basis of the statement given by the 2[nd] respondent against the petitioner, alleging offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and later after filing Annexure-A1 final report, it was taken on file as C.C.No.1091/2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrte Court-II, Hosdurg. It is also an admitted fact that since the petitioner did not appear before the court below, the case was transferred to the register of long pending cases and it is pending as L.P.C. No.6/2013 before that court. Now the matter has been settled between the parties. The defacto-complainant filed an affidavit stating that, he did not sustain any serious injuries and it was not a premeditated incident and he has no grievance against the Crl. M.C. No.1208 of 2014 4 ## petitioner now. 6. It is true that the petitioner had involved in a crime in the year 2008 and that was ended in acquittal. That cannot be said that, he is a habitual offender and a person creating nuisance in the society. Now the matter has been settled between the parties and harmony has been restored between the defacto-complainant and the petitioner. In the decision reported in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012(4) KLT 108 (SC)],** the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: “The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceedings 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 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 FIR may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case an no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in Crl. M.C. No.1208 of 2014 5 relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. 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 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 other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of the criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question (s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” It cannot be said that on the basis of the allegations that there is any public interest involved in the case. It was a private dispute that resulted in the commission of the crime. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and also considering the settlement arrived at between the petitioner and the defacto-complainant and there is no possibility of conviction being entered into, if the 6 Crl. M.C. No.1208 of 2014 trial is allowed to be proceeded with and it will be only a wastage of judicial time, to allow the case to continue on file, I feel that, it is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of the ‘Code’ has to be invoked to quash the proceedings. So the application is allowed and further proceedings in L.P.C.No.6/2013 (C.C.No.1091/2010 in crime No.519/2010 of Bekal Police Station) of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Hosdurg, against the petitioner is quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court for further action. Sd/- K. Ramakrishnan, Judge // True Copy // P.A. to Judge ss