Sulaiman and others v. Shameer Babu and State of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2014/2ND JYAISHTA, 1936 Crl.MC.No. 2130 of 2014 () ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 336/2012 of SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI CRIME NO. 72/2010 OF KARUVARAKUNDU POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM ## PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED : ----------------------------------- 1. SULAIMAN, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.KUNHALAVI, THANGAYATHIL HOUSE, PAYIPPULLU, THUVOOR AMSOM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. RAJAN, AGED 30 YEARS, - S/O.CHELLI, MUNDAYIL HOUSE, PAYIPPULLU, THUVOOR AMSOM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. MUHAMMED, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.HAMZA, KILIYATH HOUSE, PAYIPPULLU, THUVOOR AMSOM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. ABDUL NAZAR, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.BEERAN, PULLARATTIL HOUSE, PAYIPPULLU, THUVOOR AMSOM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. RAFSAL, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.MARAKKAR, KILIYATH HOUSE, PAYIPPULLU THUVOOR AMSOM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 6. YOUSUF, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED, KILIYATH HOUSE, PAYIPPULLU, THUVOOR AMSOM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 7. JAMSHAD, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL MAJEED, PATTIPARAMBATH HOUSE, PAYIPPULLU, THUVOOR AMSOM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A Crl.MC.No. 2130 of 2014 () ------------------------------------ ## RESPONDENT(S)/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE : ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ## 1. SHAMEER BABU, AGED 31 YEARS, - S/O.MARAKKAR, KILIYATH HOUSE, THUVVUR MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 679 327. 2. STATE OF KERALA, - REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 31. R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.DEVESH R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S. HYMA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-05-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 2130 of 2014 () ------------------------------------ APPENDIX PETITIONERS’ ANNEXURES : ------------------------------------- ANX.1. COPY OF THE FIR AND FIS IN KARUVARAKUNDU POLICE CRIME 72/2010. ANX.2. COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED IN KARUVARAKUNDU POLICE STATION CRIME NO. 72/2010. ANX.3. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25-2-2014 IN S.C. NO. 301/2013 ON THE FILE OF SPECIAL COURT FOR SC/ST(POA) ACT CASES, MANJERI. ANX.4. THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS’ ANNEXURES: --------------------------------------- NIL // True Copy // P.A. To Judge DSV/26/05 ## K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No. 2130 of 2014 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 23[rd] day of May, 2014 ## O R D E R This Crl.M.C. is filed by the accused in S.C.No.336 of 2012 to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.336 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track-II), Manjeri, on the basis of settlement under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioners are the accused in S.C.No.336 of 2012, now pending before the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track-II), Manjeri. The case was originated on the basis of a statement given by the 1[st] respondent against the petitioners alleging offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 307 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, as Crime No.72 of 2010 of Karuvarakundu Police Station in Malappuram District. After investigation, Annexure.2 Final Report was filed and it was taken on file as C.P.No.29 of 2011 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-I, Manjeri. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the learned Sessions Judge, Manjeri has taken cognizance of the case as S.C.No.336 of 2012. It is now pending before the Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track-II), Manjeri as made over by the Sessions Judge for disposal. Crl.M.C.No. 2130 of 2014 2 3. There was another case between the same parties and after investigation, Final Report was filed and it was tried as S.C.No.301 of 2013 by the Special Judge for trying offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and as per judgment dated 25.02.2014 that case was ended in acquittal on account of the settlement of dispute between both the parties. This case also settled due to the intervention of Mediators. There is no possibility of any conviction being entered into on account of the settlement. Since the offences are non-compoundable in nature they cannot move the lower court. So they have no other remedy except to approach this Court seeking the following reliefs. 4. The 1[st] respondent appeared through counsel and submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties due to the intervention of Mediators and the relationship between them has been restored on account of the settlement. He does not want to proceed with the prosecution. He also filed Annexure.4 affidavit stating these facts. The counsel for the petitioners also submitted the in view of the settlement that there is no possibility of conviction and he prayed for allowing the application. 3 Crl.M.C.No. 2130 of 2014 5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, as directed by this Court, submitted that there is no other case against the petitioners and there is no criminal background as well but opposed the application on the ground that Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is involved. 6. Heard both sides. 7. It is an admitted fact that on the basis of the statement given by the defacto complainant/1[st] respondent herein, Annexure.1, FIR was registered as Crime No.72 of 2010 of Karuvarakundu Police Station in Malappuram District against the petitioners alleging offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 307 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, Annexure.2 Final Report was filed and after committal, the case is now pending before the Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track-II), Manjeri as S.C.No.336 of 2012. It is also an admitted fact that on the basis of the statement given by the 2[nd] petitioner herein, another crime was registered against the brother of the defacto complainant herein and others alleging offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 506(1) read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. After Crl.M.C.No. 2130 of 2014 4 investigation, Final Report was filed in the case. After committal, the case was taken on file as S.C.No.301 of 2013 by the Special Judge for trial of cases under the above Act. As per Annexure.3 judgment, they were acquitted. It is seen from the judgment that in that case also none of the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution on account of the settlement. Now the parties have settled this dispute as well. On account of the settlement, the relationship between the parties have been restored to the original position and the communal tolerance has been restored. In view of the settlement, there is no possibility of conviction as neither the defacto complainant nor the witnesses are likely to support the prosecution. Further, since it is a dispute between two communal people which has been settled amicably due to the intervention of well wishers of both the community, it cannot be treated as a case of public interest as such. Further, I am not at this stage going to the question as to whether the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code will be attracted or not as well. No purpose will be served by allowing the case to proceed with, in view of the settlement and that will only cause to the wastage of judicial time. 8. Further in the decision reported in Gian Singh v. State of Crl.M.C.No. 2130 of 2014 5 Punjab (2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ## held that: “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 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.” 9. In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision and also considering the fact that the matter has been settled between the parties due to the intervention of Mediators, communal harmony has been brought in on account of the settlement between the members of the two communities, there is no possibility of conviction in view of the settlement and Crl.M.C.No. 2130 of 2014 6 allowing the case to proceed with will only amount to wastage of judicial time, this Court feels that it is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked to quash the proceedings. In the result, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings in S.C.No.336 of 2012 (Crime No.72 of 2010 of Karuvarakundu Police Station of Malappuram District) now pending before the Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track-II), Manjeri as against the petitioners is quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately for further necessary action. Sd/K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. DSV/24/05 # Crl.M.C.No. 2130 of 2014 7