Younusali and Abdul RahooF @ Poomen v State of Kerala and Rafeeqali

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/8TH BHADRA, 1935** **Crl.MC.No. 3685 of 2013 () ---------------------------** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 244/2013 of J.M.F.C.II,PERINTHALMANNA CRIME NO. 51/2013 OF WANDOOR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM** **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2 AND 4:** **-----------------------------** **1. YOUNUSALI, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.SHAMSUDHEEN, PARIYEDATH HOUSE, ANCHACHAVIDI, VELLAYOOR AMSOM, KALIKAVU, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **2. ABDUL RAHOOF @ POOMON, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.KUNJAPPA, CHAVIDIKKUZHIYAN HOUSE, ANCHACHAVIDI, VELLAYOOR AMSOM, KALIKAVU, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN** **RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** **-------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682031.** **2. RAFEEKALI, S/O.SAIDALI, POOKKODAN HOUSE, VELLAYOOR AMSOM, PALLISSERI, KALIKAVU - 676 525, NILMABUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **R2 BY ADV. SMT.NIMA JACOB R1-BY P.P.SMT. V.H.JASMINE** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3685 of 2013 () ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:** **-----------------------** **ANNEXURE-A1: TRUE COPY OF THE FIR, FIS AND CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.51/2013 OF WANDOOR POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE-A2: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL** **--------------------------** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **cl** ## **V.K. MOHANAN, J.** ...................................................... CRL.M.C.NO.3685 OF 2013 ...................................................... Dated this the 30[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 accused Nos.2 and 4 in C.C.No.244/13 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perinthalmanna, which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No.51/2013 of Wandoor Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 452,341 and 324 read with Section 34 of I.P.C with a prayer to quash all further proceedings against the petitioners pursuant to Annexure A1 charge sheet in Crime No.51/13 of Wandoor police station pending as C.C.No.244/13 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Perinthalmmanna as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that on 27.1.13 at about 6 p.m due to previous animosity on account of difference of opinion in connection with a local football match, the accused persons four in number, in furtherance of their common intention to cause hurt to CW1, criminally trespassed CRL.M.C.NO.3685 OF 2013 2 into the shop of CW1, wrongfully restrained him, beat him with hands, hit with stone and caused simple hurt. Thus the accused has committed the offences punishable under sections 452, 341 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC. Now the case of the petitioners is that during the pendency of the above case, the entire dispute is settled with the second respondent out of court and accordingly the second respondent has sworn into Annexure A2 affidavit. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the second respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, during the pendency of the above crime, the dispute is settled amicably between the parties which is the subject matter of the above crime. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above crime is abuse of process of law and proceedings. 5. The learned counsel for the second respondent who on the basis of specific instruction received from the second respondent submitted that the above respondent, who is the de facto complainant does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioners and he has no grievance against them. 3 CRL.M.C.NO.3685 OF 2013 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 including Annexure-A2 affidavit. 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 Sections 452,341 and 324 read with Section 34 of IPC which are more or less personal in nature and no public interest is 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 second respondent, it appears to me that the the de facto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioners/accused 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 the Supreme Court has held as follows:- 4 CRL.M.C.NO.3685 OF 2013 “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 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 5 CRL.M.C.NO.3685 OF 2013 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........” 8. 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. According to me, 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 6 CRL.M.C.NO.3685 OF 2013 conviction of the 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 - I and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No. 244/13 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perinthalmanna/Annexure AI in Crime No.51/2013 of Wandoor Police Station and all further proceedings thereto. ## **V.K. MOHANAN, JUDGE.** cl