Shereef O.T. and others v. State of Kerala and NIYAS N

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** ## **MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2016/9TH JYAISHTA, 1938** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3003 of 2016** **----------------------------------------** ## **C.C.NO.1064/2014 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, HOSDRUG CRIME NO. 492/2013 OF CHITTARIKKAL POLICE STATION , KASARAGOD --------------------** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED : -----------------------------------------** **1. SHEREEF O.T, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.AHAMMED KUNHI, NANGARATH HOUSE, BEDUR, BEEMANADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD.** **2. A.K.SIDHEQUE, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.ABBAS, ANJILLATH KUPPURAYIL HOUSE, ARIYAGGALLU, BEEMANADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD.** **3. SUHAIL A.G,** - **AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.ASSAINAR, ANCHILLATH HOUSE, ILLAMPADY, ARIYAMKALLU, BEEMANADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD.** **4. RASHID P.P,** - **AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.SEYD A.G, PUZHAYAPATTILLATH HOUSE, ARIYAMKALLU, BEEMANADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **5. USMAN FAROOQUE,** - **AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMEDKUNHI, KUTTURILLATH HOUSE, ILLAMPADY, ARIYAMKALLU, BEEMANADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **6. NURUDHEEN P.P.C,** - **AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.SAHEED A.G, PAZHAYAPATTILLATH HOUSE, ARIYAMKALLU, BEEMANADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR** **..2/-** **..2..** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3003 of 2016** **----------------------------------------** **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT : ----------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.** **2. NIYAS N, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.ISMAIL, NANGARATH HOUSE, BEDOOR, PERUMPATTA.P.O., BEEMANADI VILLAGE, VELLARIKKUNDU TALUK.** **R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SUBHASH** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Msd. **Crl.MC.No. 3003 of 2016** ## **-----------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :** **AI A TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO.492 OF 2013 OF CHITTARIKKAL POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD.** **AII A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.492 OF 2013 OF CHITTARIKKAL POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD.** **AIII A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ENDORSING THE FACTUM OF SETTLEMENT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :** ## **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A.TO JUDGE** Msd. ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 3003 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 30[th] May, 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **ORDER** 1. The petitioners herein are accused Nos. 1 to 6 in C.C.No.1064 of 2014 of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Hosdurg involving offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 325, 427 and 506(ii) read with Section 149 of the India Penal Code. The petitioners have come up with this petition invoking powers of this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash pending criminal proceedings on the ground that the matter has been amicably resolved between the parties. 2. Prosecution allegation is that on 14.11.2013 at 11 PM, the petitioners herein attacked the _de facto_ complainant with dangerous weapons. Investigation was conducted and final report was laid before the Judicial Magistrate of First Crl.M.C. No. 3003 of 2016 -2- Class-II, Hosdurg and the case is now pending before the same. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that during the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the petitioners herein have settled the matter with the second respondent herein. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent referring to Annexure AIII affidavit submitted that the matter has been amicably resolved, and that the said respondent does not intend that the criminal proceedings as against the petitioners herein should continue any further. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submits that the petitioners 2 and 4 are involved in Crime No. 491 of 2013 of Chittarikkal Police Station which was registered _inter alia_ for offence punishable under Section 326 of the IPC as well. However, after perusing the wound certificate it is submitted that in crime No.491 of 2013, occurred on the same day and no serious injuries were Crl.M.C. No. 3003 of 2016 -3- sustained to Jabir V.S and Shefeeque P.A, who are the injured persons in that particular case. It is further submitted that in view of Annexure AIII affidavit, the State has no serious objection in quashing the proceedings as it would promote peace and harmony. 6. It is thus borne out from the submissions made at the bar that the parties have amicably settled their disputes with their free will and without any kind of pressure, influence or coercion. The compromise, it is felt, is voluntarily and genuine and can be acted upon. The law with regard to the settlement of criminal disputes on the strength of an amicable resolution of the disputes between the parties is no more _res integra_ . ## 7. **In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012 (10)** **SCC 303),** Apex Court has laid down that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and the wrongdoer Crl.M.C. No. 3003 of 2016 -4- to put an end to the criminal proceedings. This view was reiterated in **Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014 (6) SCC 466) and Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another (2014 (9) SCC 653).** 8. It was held that the 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. It was held that certain categories of cases involving 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 as those offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. But those cases where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and those in which the parties have resolved their entire dispute could fittingly be quashed by this Court taking into account the Crl.M.C. No. 3003 of 2016 -5- compromise between the offender and victim. In such cases the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused and the _de facto_ complainant to great oppression and prejudice. 9. After having anxiously considered the submissions it is felt that it would be unfair and contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding. It would only tantamount to abuse of process of law to subject the parties to the ordeal of a protracted criminal proceeding despite the settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer. Settlement will augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony. 10. Though Crime No. 491 of 2013 has also been registered as against petitioners 2 and 4, after having gone through the accident register-cum-wound certificate, it does not appear that serious injuries were sustained. Considering Crl.M.C. No. 3003 of 2016 -6- the above submissions and having regard to the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that this petition can be allowed. In the result, this petition is allowed and all further proceedings as against the petitioners in C.C.No.1064 of 2014 of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Hosdurg shall stand quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE** kp/-31.5.16