Sirajuudeen.E.K. v. State of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936 Crl.MC.No.2770 of 2014 (D) --------------------------- CRIME NO.383/2014 OF MANJERI POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------------- SIRAJUDEEN.E.K. AGED 30 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMED, MUNDITHUDIYIL POOKOOTTUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 517. BY ADV. SRI.ESM.KABEER RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------- ## 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM -682 031. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MANJERI POLICE STATION MALAPPURAM DISTRICT -676 517. 3. SANTHOSH KUMAR, AGED 42 YEARS S/O.NARAYANAN, FLAT NO.3, NARAYANA APARTMENT PERINTHALMANNA - 679322 (BRANCH-IN-CHARGE MACSON DRILLERS AND TRADERS, C.H.BYEPASS ROAD MANJERI). R3 BY ADV. SRI.ABDUL MAJEED.N R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 2770 of 2014 () --------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: ------------------------------ ANNEXURE-A1: TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.383/2014 OF THE MANJERI POLICE STATION DATED 21.3.2014 ANNEXURE-A2: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - I, MANJERI DATED 22.3.2014 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL -------------------------------- // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ----------------------------Crl.M.C.No.2770 Of 2014 --------------------------------Dated this the 19[th] day of December, 2014.** ## **O R D E R** The prayer in this Crl.M.C is to quash the impugned Annexure-A1 FIR in Crime No.383/2014 of Manjeri Police Station. The 3[rd] respondent had filed the private criminal complaint as C.M.P. before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Manjeri alleging certain offences against the petitioner and some others. This led to the registration of the impugned Annexure-A1 FIR in Crime No.383/2014 of Manjeri Police Station for offences alleged under Secs. 143, 147, 383 and 149 IPC. The case of the 3[rd] respondent in the private criminal complaint is that the petitioner herein had purchased two cutting machines from the 3[rd] respondent and one of the machine was said to be not usable, so the petitioner contacted the 3[rd] respondent on 15.3.2014 and that the 3[rd] respondent could not repair the machine for want of spare parts and that he assured the petitioner that he will do the repair works that while the 3[rd] respondent was making arrangement for getting the spare parts from the Perinthalmanna Branch, on 17.3.2014 at about 5:30 p.m., the petitioner and six other persons came ::2:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.2770 Of 2014** to the 3[rd] respondent firm and forcibly taken a cutting machine and some spare parts and taken the items in a lorry and that the cutting machine and spare parts so taken will fetch an amount of 1,08,250/- and that the petitioner also threatened the 3[rd] respondent that as the police did not register the case, the 3[rd] respondent had filed the private criminal complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Manjeri and pursuant to which the 2[nd] respondent, Sub Inspector of Police has registered the impugned Annexure-A1 FIR in Crime No.383/2014 for the above said offences. Copy of the private criminal complaint has been produced as Annexure-A2 in this Crl.M.C. It is the case of the petitioner that due to the delay in repairing the cutting machine has caused great loss to him in completing the work already taken by the petitioner. Though the petitioner waited as requested by the 3[rd] respondent, timely arrangements was not made and there happened difference of opinion among the petitioner and the 3[rd] respondent and that it is in this background, the 3[rd] respondent has gave the complaint which led to the impugned crime. That later, the office bearers of the association of production of stones and the petitioner's brother intervened in the matter ::3:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.2770 Of 2014** and settled all the disputes between the petitioner and 3[rd] respondent. The 3[rd] respondent-defacto complainant filed affidavit dated 25.11.2014 which has been produced in this Crl.M.C wherein it is stated that the petitioner and two others are the accused in the above crime and that all the disputes between the petitioner and the 3[rd] respondent have been settled out of court. That the 3[rd] respondent has received Rs.1,08,250/- from the petitioner as the price for the cutting machine and accordingly has agreed to withdraw the private criminal complaint filed by him before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Manjeri. It is the background of these facts and circumstances that the petitioner has filed this Crl.M.C with the prayer to quash impugned Annexure-A1 FIR in Crime No.383/2014 of Manjeri Police Station and all further proceedings arising therefrom. 2. The Crl.M.C has been admitted and Sri.N.Abdul Majeed, Advocate, has taken notice for the 3[rd] respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor has taken notice for respondents 1 & 2. 3. Heard Sri.E.S.M.Kabeer, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.N.Abdul Majeed, learned counsel ::4:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.2770 Of 2014** appearing for the 3[rd] respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents 1 & 2. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the pendency of the aforementioned criminal proceedings, the matter has been settled amicably between the parties, and that the continuation of the proceedings in the above case/crime will cause miscarriage of justice to both parties as the real disputants to the controversy have arrived at an amicable settlement and any further continuation of the criminal proceedings will amount to sheer wastage of time and money and would unnecessarily strain the judicial, administrative and financial resources of the State. 5. Sri.N.Abdul Majeed, learned counsel appearing for the 3[rd] respondent has submitted on the basis of the specific instructions furnished by the 3[rd] respondent that the disputes arose out of misunderstandings in the transaction of sale of cutting machines and that the crime was registered only on the basis of the private criminal complaint filed by the 3[rd] respondent as evidenced from Annexure-A2 and that the 3[rd] respondent wishes to withdraw the impugned Annexure-A2 private criminal complaint which led to the registration of the ::5:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.2770 Of 2014** impugned Annexure-A1 Crime No.383/2014 of Manjeri Police Station. It is accordingly submitted by the learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent that the impugned criminal proceedings may be quashed as any further continuance of the impugned criminal proceedings will only disturb the harmony in the relation between the petitioner and 3[rd] respondent as the entire disputes arose out of the sale of cutting machines and the entire misunderstandings have been cleared and settled by the parties and that he has no objection in the quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings and that the complainant/victim/injured does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioner as he has no grievance against him and that they will not raise any dispute/complaint in future if the prayer for quashing the impugned final report is allowed. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor also was heard and submitted that this Court may consider the prayer in this case in the light of the law well settled by the Apex Court in that regard. 7. After having carefully considered the submissions of the parties and after having perused the pleadings as well as the documents and materials placed in this matter, it can be ::6:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.2770 Of 2014** seen that the offences alleged are more or less personal in nature. The crucial aspect of the matter is that though such offences are involved, the real disputants to the controversy, which has led to the impugned criminal proceedings, have actually arrived at an amicable settlement of the matter. From the submissions made by the learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent, it is clear to the Court that the injured/victim/defacto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioner/accused in the light of the settlement arrived at by them. 8. In this connection, it is relevant to note the decision of the Apex Court in the case between _**Gian Singh** v._ _**State of Punjab**_ reported in 2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 160, para 61 = (2012) 10 SCC 303 = 2012(4) KLT 108(SC), wherein the Supreme Court has held as follows in para 61 thereof [ See SCC (Cri)]: _“61. 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_ ::7:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.2770 Of 2014** _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, 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 the decision reported in the case _**Yogendra Yadav & others**_ _**v. The State of Jharkhand & another**_ reported in 2014 (8) Scale 634 = III (2014) Current Criminal Reports CCR 426 (SC), the Apex Court has held as follows: _“When the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and, therefore, do not affect public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them”._ The Apex Court in the above case was dealing with a case involving offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 504 & 307 r/w Section 34 Indian Penal Code. ::8:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.2770 Of 2014** 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it is seen further that the impugned criminal proceedings have arisen consequent to the personal disputes between the disputants and the disputes have been settled amicably between the parties. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to hold that in the light of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and particularly in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the principles laid down in the aforementioned decisions of the Apex Court will be squarely applicable in the present case. Moreover, since the real disputants to the controversy have amicably settled the disputes, which led to these impugned criminal proceedings, it is also the duty of the court to promote such settlement, instead of compelling the parties to go on with the dispute. It is also pertinent to note that since the matter is settled out of court, in the event of proceeding with the trial, there may not be any fruitful prosecution and the chances of conviction of the accused is rather negligible and therefore, the net result of continuance of criminal proceedings would be sheer waste of judicial time rather meaningless and therefore would amount to abuse of the process of court proceedings in the larger ::9:: ## **Crl.M.C.No.2770 Of 2014** sense. Hence following decisions of the Apex Court cited supra, this Court is inclined to hold that the Crl.M.C. can be allowed by granting the prayers sought for. In the result, Crl.M.C is allowed and the impugned Annexure-A1 FIR in Crime No.383/2014 of Manjeri Police Station and all further proceedings arising therefrom stand quashed. The petitioner shall produce certified copies of this order before the Station House Officer concerned as well as before the court below concerned. **ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.** bkn/-