V.K. Nabeel v. State of Kerala and M. Sunil Kumar

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/28TH SRAVANA, 1935** **Crl.MC.No. 153 of 2013 ()** **-------------------------CC NO.1008/2011 OF JFCM COURT-II, HOSDURG** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:** **----------------------** **V.K.NABEEL, AGED 27 YEARS S/O.ISMAIL, PUZHEKKARA(H), KOTTAPPURAM NILESHWAR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.K.P.HARISH** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT(S)/STATE :** **----------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERLALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.** **2. M.SUNIL KUMAR,, AGED 29 YEARS S/O.THAMBAN, KARUVACHERRY, NILESHWAR VILLAGE KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671313.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.V.H.JASMINE R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.T.SURESH KUMAR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **Crl.MC.No. 153 of 2013 ()** ## **--------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'(S) ANNEXURES:** **ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 30.04.2008 IN CRIME NO.144 OF 2008 OF NILESHWAR POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE AII TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF CHARGE SHEET DATED 30.08.2008 IN CRIME NO.144 OF 2008 FILED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURTII, HOSDURG. ANNEXURE AIII THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.09.2011 IN CC.1124/2008 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, HOSDURG.** **ANNEXURE AIV THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT DATED 05.01.2012 SIGNED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE AN ADVOCATE NOTARY.** ## **RESPONDENT'(S) ANNEXURES: NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **PA TO JUDGE** ## **BKA** ## **V.K. MOHANAN, J.** **-------------------------------------------------Crl. M.C. No. 153 of 2013 -------------------------------------------------Dated this the 19[th] day of August, 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 petitioner, who is the 2[nd] accused in CC No.1124/008 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Hosdurg, which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No.144/2008 of of Nileshwar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 r/w 149 of IPC. Further, the case against him was split-up and refiled as CC No.1008/2011. According to the petitioner, the dispute with the 2[nd] respondent, who is the de facto complainant, is settled, and therefore, no purpose will be served if the petitioner is constrained to face the prosecution, which is pending against him in CC No.1008/2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Hosdurg. Crl. M.C. No. 153 of 2013 **==> picture [20 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** 2. The prosecution case is that on 29.04.2008 at 11.50 p.m. at Karuvacheri in Nileshwar Village, the accused nos.1 and 2 and other 8 identifiable persons formed an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and in furtherance of their common object to commit offence, wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant. Moreover, they have caused injury to the de facto complainant using an iron rod and their hands. Therefore, the accused have committed the above mentioned offences and now, the case of the petitioner is that the matter is settled out of court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the 2[nd] respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the above case, the matter is settled amicably between the parties to the dispute which is the subject matter of the above case. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above case is Crl. M.C. No. 153 of 2013 **==> picture [20 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** abuse of process of law and proceedings. 5. The learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent, who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondent submitted that the above respondent, who is the de facto complainant does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioner and he has no grievance against him. 6. I have carefully considered the above submissions of the respective counsel. 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 under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 r/w 149 of IPC, which are more or less personal in nature and no public interest is Crl. M.C. No. 153 of 2013 ..4.. 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 2[nd] respondent, it appears to me that the de facto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioner in the light of the settlement arrived by them. In this juncture, it is relevant to note the decision of the Honourable Apex Court reported in **Gian Singh v. 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 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 Crl. M.C. No. 153 of 2013 ..5.. pre-dominatingly 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 victim........” 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 Crl. M.C. No. 153 of 2013 **==> picture [20 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** 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 Annexure A1 pending against the petitioners in C.C.No. 1008 of 2011 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Hosdurg and all further proceedings thereto. Sd/- **V.K. MOHANAN, JUDGE** bka/-