Kerala High Court
Muhammed Sahid vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 18 October, 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI
FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 26TH ASWINA, 1941
Crl.MC.No.5804 OF 2019(E)
CP NO. 64/2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I ,NADAPURAM
CRIME NO.228/2013 OF Nadapuram Police Station , Kozhikode
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 4:
1 MUHAMMED SAHID
AGED 24 YEARS
S/O. HAKKEEM, CHETTIKULANGARA HOUSE, VARIKKOLI,
NADAPURAM, KOZHIKODE.
2 SAFVAN
AGED 26 YEARS, S/O POCKER HAJI
MANJILAMPARAMBATH HOUSE, VARIKKOLI, NADAPURAM,
KOZHIKODE.
3 SABITH
AGED 27 YEARS, S/O KUNHABDULLA
CHETTIKULANGARA HOUSE, VARIKKOLI, NADAPURAM,
KOZHIKODE.
BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:
1 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
NADAPURAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673
504.
2 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
3 SAJEEVAN
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O. KANARAN, MEETHALE CHATHOTH, ARUR AMSOM,
PERUMUNDASSERY DESOM, ARUR P.O., PURAMERI VILLAGE,
VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE - 673 103.
R3 BY ADV. CIBI THOMAS
R1 & R2 BY SMT V SREEJA-PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
15.10.2019, THE COURT ON 18.10.2019 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No.5804 OF 2019(E)
2
R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, J
----------------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C No.5804 of 2019
-----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of October, 2019
ORDER
This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for quashing the proceedings against the petitioners in the case C.P No. 64/2019 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Nadapuram.
2. The petitioners are accused 1 to 3 in the aforesaid case. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The prosecution case is that on 29.03.2013, at about 22:45 hours, the accused hurled a bomb towards the house of the de facto complainant and caused damage to the ladder in the house.
3. The case was registered on the basis of the statement given to the police by the de facto complainant. After completing the investigation of the case, the police had filed charge sheet against the petitioners in the competent court.
4. The third respondent is the de facto complainant. It is Crl.MC.No.5804 OF 2019(E) 3 stated that the matter has been settled between him and the petitioners. Therefore, it is prayed that the proceedings against the petitioners in the case may be quashed.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the third respondent and also the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. The third respondent has filed an affidavit before this Court. It is stated in the affidavit filed by him that the dispute between him and the petitioners has been settled out of court and that he does not intend to proceed with the case against the petitioners. On the basis of the settlement thus arrived at between the de facto complainant and the accused, it is prayed that the proceedings against the accused in the case may be quashed.
7. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that this is not a case of purely personal or private in nature and there is element of public interest involved in the case. Learned Public Prosecutor would contend that it would not be in the interests of justice to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
8. The allegation against the petitioners is that they hurled a bomb towards the house of the de facto complainant and thereby they have committed the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. It cannot be found that it is purely a Crl.MC.No.5804 OF 2019(E) 4 personal matter between the de facto complainant and the accused. The offences allegedly committed by the petitioners have got serious impact on the society. There is element of public interest involved in the case. In such cases, the power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code cannot be invoked to quash the proceedings against the accused in relation to non-compoundable offences, on the basis of settlement arrived at between the parties (See State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan: AIR 2019 SC 1296). Settlement between the parties in relation to grave offences, which have impact on the society, cannot be given the seal of approval by the court. The crime against the society cannot be wiped out merely due to compromise between the individuals concerned.
9. It is not correct to state that in every case where the complainant has entered into a compromise with the accused, there may not be any conviction. In a given case, it may happen that the prosecution still can prove the guilt by leading cogent evidence and examining the other witnesses and the relevant evidence/material (See State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar: AIR 2019 SC 1106).
10. In the aforesaid circumstances, the prayer for quashing the proceedings against the petitioners, on the basis of the settlement of Crl.MC.No.5804 OF 2019(E) 5 the case between them and the de facto complainant, cannot be allowed. The petition is liable to be dismissed.
Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-R. NARAYANA PISHARADI JUDGE lsn Crl.MC.No.5804 OF 2019(E) 6 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT.
ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT.
ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY P.A TO JUDGE LSN