Kerala High Court
Muhammed vs Mujeeb on 17 January, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2014/7TH JYAISHTA, 1936
Crl.MC.No. 2200 of 2014
-------------------------------------
S.C.NO. 502/2009 OF ASSISTANT SESSION'S COURT, ATTINGAL
CRIME NO. 21/2007 OF PALLICKAL POLICE STATION ,
THIRUVANANDAPURAM DISTRICT.
----------------
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS. 1,4 TO 7,9,14,15,17 AND 18 :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. MUHAMMED, AGED 40 YEARS
S/O.ABDUL RASHEED, MUSALIAR MANZIL, THOLLUR DESOM,
MADAVOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. RASHIQ, AGED 39 YEARS,
S/O.KHALID, BANZEER MANZIL, KATTUPUDUSSERY,
PALLIKKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3. SHEREEF, AGED 39 YEARS,
S/O.BASHEER, UNDAPPARA VEEDU, NETTAYAM THANIYIL,
KATTUPUDUSSERY DESOM, PALLIKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
4. NIZARKUTTY, AGED 38 YEARS,
S/O.MUHAMMEDKANNU, THAZHAVILA VEEDU, NETTAYAM JUNCTION,
PUDUSSERY DESOM, PALLIKKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
5. AZEEM, AGED 37 YEARS,
S/O.SALAHUDEEN, VILAYIL VEEDU, K.K KONAM,
PALLIKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
6. MUHAMMED SHAFI, AGED 45 YEARS,
S/O.ASANARUPILLA, SHAFI MANZIL, K.K.KONAM,
KADAVOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
7. SHAMEER, AGED 38 YEARS,
S/O.AMEERKANNU, VALIYAVILA VEEDU, K.K.KONAM,
PALLIKKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
8. SHANAVASKHAN, AGED 50 YEARS,
S/O.SULAIMAN, DHARUL KHARAM VEEDU, K.K.KONAM,
PALLIKKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
9. ABDUL RAHEEM, AGED 38 YEARS,
S/O.NAZRUDEEN, NAZEEM MANZIL, MUKKADA,
PLAVILA DESOM, KUDAVOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
Msd. ..2/-
..2..
Crl.MC.No. 2200 of 2014
-------------------------------------
10. SHAMEER SHAW, AGED 38 YEARS,
S/O.SHOWKATHALI, PANAYIL PUTHAN VEEDU, MUKKADA,
KUDAVOOR DESOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P
RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & INJURED AND COMPLAINANT:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. MUJEEB, AGED 43 YEARS,
S/O.ASANARUKUNJU, PARAVILA PUTHAN VEEDU,
KATTUPUDUSSERY, PALLIKKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 508.
2. ANSAR, AGED 47 YEARS,
S/O.FAKEER MUHAMMED, PARANGIMAMVIALA VEEDU,
KATTUPUDUSERRY, PALLIKKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 508.
3. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
PALLIKKAL POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
R1 R2 BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G
R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 28-05-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Msd.
Crl.MC.No. 2200 of 2014
-----------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE A: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE IN CRIME NO.21/07 OF
PALLICKAL POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
ANNEXURE B : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.01.2011 PASSED IN
SC NO.502/09 ON THE FILE OF ASST.SESSION'S COURT,
ATTINGAL.
ANNEXURE C : ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 02.04.2014 EXECUTED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE D : ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 02.04.2014 EXECUTED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE.
Msd.
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
.................................................
Crl.M.C.No.2200 of 2014
..................................................
Dated this the 28th day of May, 2014.
O R D E R
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed by the petitioners, who are accused 1, 4 to 7, 9, 14,15, 17 and 18 in Crime No.21/2007 of Pallickal police station, Thiruvananthapuram district to quash the proceedings on the basis of a settlement under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioners are accused 1, 4 to 7, 9, 14, 15, 17 and 18 in Crime No.21/2007 of Pallickal police station, Thiruvananthapuram district and they were charge sheeted along with others alleging commission of offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 341, 324, 506(ii) and 308 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. After investigation, final report was filed and it was taken on file as C.P.No.89/2007 and some of the accused entered appearance and case against them was committed to sessions court and it was taken on file as SC.No.502/2009 and made over to Assistant Sessions Court, Attingal for disposal and after trial, they were acquitted by that court. As regards petitioners 1 and 10, the case after committal is now Crl.M.C.No.2200 of 2014 2 pending before the Assistant Sessions Court, Attingal as SC.No.192/2010 and the case against the 3rd petitioner has been transferred to register of long pending cases and pending as L.P.No.77/2013. The case against petitioners 2, 6 to 9 is pending as C.P.No.1/2014 and the case against the 4th petitioner is pending as S.C.No.1336/2010 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Attingal and the case against the 5th petitioner is pending as C.P.No.70/2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Attingal.
3. Now the matter has been settled between the parties. On account of the settlement, no purpose will be served by proceeding with the case. Since some of the offences are non compoundable in nature, they cannot file application before the court below. So they have no other remedy except to approach this Court seeking the following relief:
Therefore, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash all proceedings in furtherance to Ann-A Crime No.21/07 of Pallickal Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram Dist., as against the petitioners including SC.No.192/10 on the file of Asst. Session's Court, Attingal, C.P.No.1/14 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court- Crl.M.C.No.2200 of 2014 3 II, Attingal, LP No.77/13 on the file of Asst. Session's Court, Attingal SC No.1336/10 on t he file of Asst. Session's Court, Attingal and CP.No.70/10 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Attingal forthwith and acquit the petitioners.
4. Respondents 1 and 2, who are the defacto complainant and the injured in the case, appeared through counsel and submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties and they do not want to proceed with the case and they filed Annexures C and D affidavits before this Court stating these facts.
5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 9th petitioner, who is the 17th accused, has already been acquitted as per Annexure B judgment. He has been by mistake shown in the petition. In view of the settlement, there is no purpose in keeping the case further. So he also prayed for allowing the application.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, as directed by this Court submitted that there is no other case against the petitioners, but opposed the application on the ground that Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code has been Crl.M.C.No.2200 of 2014 4 incorporated.
7. Heard both sides and considered the materials available on record.
8. It is an admitted fact that on the basis of the statement given by the first respondent as defacto complainant, a case has been registered as Crime No.21/2007 of Pallickal police station, Thiruvananthapuram district alleging commission of offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 341, 324, 506(ii) and 308 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. After investigation, final report has been filed and it was originally taken on file as C.P.No.89/2007 and the case against some of the accused was committed to court of sessions and it was taken on file as S.C.No.502/2009 and they were acquitted as per Annexure B judgment of the Assistant Sessions Court, Attingal as none of the prosecution witnesses had supported the case of the prosecution. It is also seen from the allegations in the petition itself that the case against petitioners 1 and 10 is pending as SC.No.192/2010 of Assistant Sessions Court, Attingal and as against petitioners 2, 6 to 8 as C.P.No.1/2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Attingal and as against the third petitioner is pending as Crl.M.C.No.2200 of 2014 5 C.P.No.77/2013 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Attingal and as against the 4th petitioner, the case is pending as SC.No.1336/2010 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Attingal and as against the 5th petitioner, it is pending as C.P.No.70/2010 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Attingal. It is also seen from the affidavits filed that the matter has been settled between the parties and even the case against the other persons, who were acquitted, was also disposed of on the basis of the settlement as none of the prosecution witnesses had supported the case of the prosecution. So under the circumstances, no purpose will be served by keeping the cases on file. Since the case against the 5th petitioner has been already disposed of and he was acquitted as per Annexure B judgment, no relief need be granted in respect of him and petition as against him can be dismissed as unnecessary.
9. Further in the decision reported in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
"But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre- dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for Crl.M.C.No.2200 of 2014 6 the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial mercantile, 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. 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 the criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and 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 affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." Crl.M.C.No.2200 of 2014 7
10. In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision and also considering the fact that the matter has been settled between the parties and the case against some of the accused has already been disposed of after trial as per Annexure B judgment as none of the witness had supported the case of the prosecution and no purpose will be served by keeping the case on file, this Court feels that this is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be invoked to quash the proceedings to promote the settlement.
So, the application is allowed and the case against the petitioners 1 to 8 and 10 who are accused 1, 4 to 7, 9, 14 15 and 18 in Crime No.21/2007 of Pallickal police station and pending as SC.Nos.192/2010, SC.No.1336/2010 and LP.No.77/2013 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Attingal and C.P.No.1/2014 and C.P.No.70/2010 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Attingal is hereby quashed. The case against 9th petitioner is dismissed as unnecessary as he has already been acquitted as per Annexure B judgment.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the Crl.M.C.No.2200 of 2014 8 concerned courts immediately after necessary further action in this regard.
Sd/-
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
/true copy/ P.S to Judge cl Crl.M.C.No.2200 of 2014 9