Sijil, Nijil and Lalu v. State of Kerala, Shaju and Habeeb Rahman

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** ## **TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2013/18TH ASHADHA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2790 of 2013** **----------------------------------** **[S.C.NO. 688/2012 OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, IRINJALAKUDA, CRIME NO.754/12 OF MALA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT]** **............** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:** **-------------------------------------** **1. SIJIL, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O SIVARAMAN, MURUKKUMTHARA VEEDU, VELLOOR DESOM, PUTHENCHIRA VILLAGE.** **2. NIJIL, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O ABDUL SALEEM, ARIPPURATHU VEEDU, PINDANI DESOM, PUTHENCHIRA VILLAGE.** ## **3. LALU, AGED 31 YEARS,** - **S/O SIVADASAN, CHULLIPARAMBIL VEEDU, METHALA DESOM, METHALA VILLAGE, KODUNGALLOOR.** **BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV, SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN.** ## **RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT/ STATE:** **----------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA,** - **REP BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO 754/2012 OF MALA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT).** **2. SHAJU, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O SULAIMAN, THARUPPEEDIKAYIL VEEDU, VELLOOR DESOM, PUTHENCHIRA VILLAGE, PUTHENCHIRA THRISSUR DISTRICT -680 005.** **Prv.** ## **CRL.M.C. NO.2790/2013:** **3. HABEEB RAHMAN, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O ALI, PAINATTUPADY VEEDU, PUNJAPPARAMBU DESOM, THEKKUMKARA VILLAGE, KONATHUKUNNU, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT- 680 006.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S. HYMA, R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVY.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Prv.** **CRL.M.C. NO.2790/2013:** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:** **ANNEXURE I: COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IS IN CRIME NO 754/2012 OF MALA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR.** **ANNEXURE II: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 06-07-2013.** **ANNEXURE III: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 06-07-2013.** **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE.** **Prv.** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **---------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No. 2790 of 2013** **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 9[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 petitioners, who are accused in Crime No. 754 of 2012 of Mala Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 323,341,324,325,308 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash all further proceedings in S.C.No.688 of 2012 pending on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Irinjalakuda as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The prosecution allegation in the above case is that on 7.7.2012 at about 9 p.m. the petitioners had assaulted the second and third respondents and in the incident, the third respondent sustained injury to his nasal bone and the accused beat the de facto complainant with a wooden stick and thereby committed the offences punishable Crl.M.C.No.2790 of 2013 :-2-: under Sections 323,341,324,325,308 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and now, the case of the petitioners is that the matter is settled out of court between the petitioners and the de facto complainant since the incident had occurred due to mis-understanding and now, due to the intervention of the senior citizens of the locality as well as the interference of the senior members of the families of both the parties, the entire disputes are settled amicably. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the second and third respondents. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that during the pendency of the above crime, the matter is settled amicably between the parties to the dispute which is the subject matter of the above crime. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above crime is abuse of process of law and proceedings. Crl.M.C.No.2790 of 2013 **==> picture [21 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** 5. The learned counsel for the second and third respondents, who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondents, submitted that the above respondents, who are the de facto complainant and the injured do not intend to proceed any further against the petitioners and they have no grievance against them. 6. I have carefully considered the above submissions of the respective counsel. Annexures II and III are the affidavits sworn to by the de facto complainant and the injured, who are respondents 2 and 3. 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 323,341,324,325,308 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. Crl.M.C.No.2790 of 2013 :-4-: 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 and third respondents, it appears to me that the the de facto complainant and the injured have 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 v. Honourable Apex Court reported in **Gian Singh 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_ Crl.M.C.No.2790 of 2013 :-5-: _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 predominatingly 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_ Crl.M.C.No.2790 of 2013 :-6-: _victim........”_ 8. 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, 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 all further Crl.M.C.No.2790 of 2013 :-7-: proceedings in S.C.No.688 of 2012 pending on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Irinjalakuda. **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** MBS/ Crl.M.C.No.2790 of 2013 :-8-: