T. P. Rasheed Hussain @ Abdul Rasheed v. Yousuf and State of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 20TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 29TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4304 of 2008() ------------------------CR.NO.581/2001 OF KONDOTTY POLICE STATION PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED:- ------------------------ T.P. RASHEED HUSSAIN @ ABDUL RASHEED, S/O. MOHAMMED ABDUL RAZAK @ SAHEER MASTER, PALLIYALITHODI HOUSE, P.O. MONGAM, CHERUVATHOOR, KONDOTTY MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN RESPONDENT(S): DEFECATO COMPLAINT AND STATE:- --------------------------------------------- 1. YOUSUF, S/O. BANGALATH MOHAMMED, VALLIYA PEEDIKAKAL HOUSE, MORAYUR AMSOM, MONGAM DESOM, MALAPPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KONDOTTY, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB SRI.DEVIDAS.U.K THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## **R.BASANT, J.** **----------------------** Crl.M.C.No.4304 of 2008 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 20[th] day of November 2008 ## **O R D E R** The petitioner faces allegations in a crime alleging the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner is that in the course of an attempt to settle a dispute by mediation, the petitioner allegedly became irritated and stabbed the first respondent with a knife. Investigation is in progress. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the F.I.R registered may be quashed for two reasons. First of all, it is contended that the inclusion of the offence under Section 307 I.P.C is totally unjustified. There was no intention whatsoever to cause the death of the victim. It was only a skirmish in the course of an attempt to settle a dispute. Passions ran high and the knee jerk reaction to the situation had resulted in the injury to the first respondent. It is not a case where there was any intention to cause the death of the victim. In these circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends first of all that the invocation of the very allegation under Crl.M.C.No.4304/08 2 Section 307 I.P.C is not justified. At worst, only an allegation under Section 324 I.P.C could and should have been raised, contends the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the first respondent/victim accepts this contention and submits that, at any rate, it would be puerile to assume that the petitioner entertained any intention to cause the death of the first respondent. The first respondent has no case that the petitioner had intended to cause his death or even to cause serious or vital injury on him. In these circumstances, the first respondent submits that the first respondent has no objection against quashing of the allegation under Section 307 I.P.C. 4. It is further submitted that the parties have settled their disputes. The dispute is one which is purely personal and private one between the parties. No issue of public policy or public justice is at all involved. It was a purely personal dispute and the incident occurred in the course of an attempt to settle an earlier outstanding dispute. All disputes have been settled. Following the dictum in **Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [2008 AIR SCW 2287]** , **Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation [2008(3) KLT 769(SC)]** and **Manoj** Crl.M.C.No.4304/08 3 **Sharma v. State [2008(4)KLT 417 SC]** composition of the offence may be accepted and further proceedings in the crime may be quashed, it is prayed. 5. The learned counsel for the first respondent/victim confirms the composition. An affidavit has been produced as Annexure A3 wherein the first respondent has reported composition in unmistakable terms. The affidavit is attested by a notary public. 6. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor accepts that the allegations raised are purely personal and private between the parties and the State has no objection against acceptance of the composition and consequent quashing of the proceedings. The case diary has been perused and explained to me by the learned Public Prosecutor. The wound certificate has been placed before me. There is nothing to indicate that even a grievous hurt has been suffered by the victim, that is the first respondent, it is conceded. 7. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of the opinion that notwithstanding the fact that the offence shown in the F.I.R is a non-compoundable one, this is an eminently fit case where the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction Crl.M.C.No.4304/08 4 under Section 482 Cr.P.C as enabled by the dictum in **Madan Mohan, Nikhil Merchant** and **Manoj Sharma** (Supra) can safely be invoked to bring to premature termination the proceedings initiated against the petitioner. **8.** In coming to this conclusion, the fact that the dispute is purely private and personal between the parties, that the victim/de facto complainant/the first respondent has harmoniously settled the disputes and compounded the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner and the fact that no issues of public justice or public interest are involved, do weigh with me considerably. The attitude of the State does also weigh with me in coming to this conclusion. 9. In the result, a) This Crl.M.C is allowed. b) Crime No.581/2001 of Kondotty police station registered showing the petitioner as an accused at the instance of the first respondent/ de facto complainant is hereby quashed. ## **(R.BASANT, JUDGE)** jsr Crl.M.C.No.4304/08 5 Crl.M.C.No.4304/08 6 ## **R.BASANT, J.** CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008