Unnenkutty and Muhammedali v. State of Kerala and Fathima @ Ayisha

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/26TH MAGHA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 8671 of 2016** **-----------------------CC 355/2015 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, PERINTHALMANNA CRIME NO. 1088/2015 OF PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM** **----------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** ## **-------------** ## **1. UNNENKUTTY** **AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.KUNHIMOIDEEN, RESIDING AT MUTHUVATTARA HOUSE, ARAKKUPARAMBU P.O., PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DT. 676 504.** ## **2. MUHAMMEDALI,** **AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.UNEEN KUTTY, RESIDING AT MUTHUVATTARA HOUSE, ARAKKUPARAMBU P.O., PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DT. 676 504.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.SURAJ.S** **RESPONDENT(S):** - **--------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA** **REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN 682031.** ## **2. FATHIMA @ AYISHA** **AGED 50 YEARS, D/O.MOIYIN, RESIDING AT CHOLARABAN HOUSE, PULLURKKODE, ARKKUPARAMBU P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, 676504.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI E.C.BINEESH R2 BY ADV. SRI.NIRMAL V NAIR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **K.V.** ## **Crl.MC.No. 8671 of 2016 () ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES** **-----------------------** **ANNEXURE-A: COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1088 OF 2015 OF THE PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE-B: COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.1088 OF 2015 OF THE MANKADA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE-C: AFFIDAVIT FILE BY 2ND RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES NIL** **-----------------------** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **K.V.** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## Crl.M.C. No. 8671 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15[th] day of February, 2017 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **O R D E R** ## **~~~~~~~** - 1.This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( 'the Code” for brevity ) with a prayer to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioners. - 2.On the basis of an FIR lodged by the 2[nd] respondent herein, Crime No.1088 of 2015 of the Perinthalmanna Police Station was registered against the petitioners herein and investigation was taken up for offences punishable under Sections 447, 341, 326 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and on its completion final report was laid before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Perinthalmanna, where the same is pending as C.C.No.355 of 2016. - 3.Prosecution allegation is that on 22.8.2015 at 8 a.m., the Crl.M.C. No.8671 of 2016 -2- petitioners herein trespassed into the house of the 2[nd] respondent and assaulted her causing bodily injuries. - 4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the 2[nd] respondent. 5.The proceedings are sought to be quashed on the basis of a settlement arrived at between the parties. The learned counsel appearing for the parties submits that in view of the resolution of the disputes , the proceedings before the criminal court is a futile exercise. Much reliance is placed on the affidavit sworn to by the 2[nd] respondent to buttress their submissions . 6.It is submitted by the learned counsel that on the basis of the information furnished by the wife of the 2[nd] petitioner Crime No.1089 of 2015 of Perinthalmanna Police Station was registered against the 2[nd] respondent and her relative. It is submitted that both these matters have Crl.M.C. No.8671 of 2016 -3- been settled at the instance of mediators and well wishers and the parties are living in peace and harmony. Reference is made to the affidavit sworn to by the party respondent to bring home the point that she has no further grievance against the petitioners. - 7.The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions expresses his reservations in the matter. However, it is submitted that the petitioners are not persons with criminal antecedents . - 8.I have considered the submissions . - 9.The position with regard to quashing of proceedings on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties is by now well settled. 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 Crl.M.C. No.8671 of 2016 -4- ## the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. It was observed as follows : _“61. 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 criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the 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 the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”_ ## 10.The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court ## in **Narinder singh v. State of Punjab. (2014) 6 SCC** **466,** the pertinent observations which are as under: _xxxxx xxxx xxxx_ _29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:_ Crl.M.C. No.8671 of 2016 -5- _(i) ends of justice, or_ _(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives._ _xxxxx xxxx xxxx_ 11.The offence committed by the petitioners cannot be said to be grave and serious having ingredients of extreme mental depravity. It also does not appear that the offence in this case will have a serious impact on the society. It is felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and secure the ends of justice. Even otherwise, persisting with the prosecution would be nothing but a waste of time as the prospects of conviction would be bleak. 12.Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court will be well justified in invoking its extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of Crl.M.C. No.8671 of 2016 -6- the Code to quash the proceedings. In the result, this petition will stand allowed. AnnexureB final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.C.No.355 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Perinthalmanna are quashed. **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE** ps/16/2/2017