Kerala High Court
Muhammed Rafeek vs Keshava S on 25 March, 2014
Author: K. Ramakrishnan
Bench: K.Ramakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/4TH CHAITHRA, 1936
Crl.MC.No. 1660 of 2014
---------------------------
CP NO. 223/2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT I, KASARAGOD
CRIME NO. 407/2013 OF KUMBALA POLICE STATION , KASARAGOD
....
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
------------------------------------------
1. MUHAMMED RAFEEK, AGED 22 YEARS,
S/O.ABBAS, RAUF MANZIL, OLAYAM JAMA-ATH QUARTERS,
SHIRIYAKKUNNU, SHIRIYA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD.
2. ABDUL SAMEER, AGED 24 YEARS,
S/O.MUHAMMED, ONANTHA HOUSE, SHIRIYAKKUNNU,
SHIRIYA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD.
3. MUHAMMED KABEER P.M., AGED 22 YEARS,
S/O.MOIDEEN, PUTHIYANGADY HOUSE, SHIRIYAKKUNNU,
SHIRIYA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD.
BY ADV. SRI.S.JIJI
RESPONDENT(S)/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT AND STATE:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. KESHAVA S., AGED 36 YEARS,
S/O.RAGHAVA, SHIRIYAKKUNNU, SHIRIYA VILLAGE,
KASARAGOD.
2. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
R1 BY ADV. SMT.NIMA JACOB
R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S.HYMA
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 25-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Kss
Crl.M.C.No.1660/2014
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEX.A1: COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CR.407/2013 OF KUMBALA POLICE
STATION.
ANNEX.A2: AFFIDAVIT DTD. 25/02/2014 SWORN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: N I L
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
Kss
K. Ramakrishnan, J.
==============================
Crl.M.C.No.1660 of 2014
==============================
Dated this, the 25th day of March, 2014.
O R D E R
This is an application filed by the accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.P.No.223/13 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court No-I, Kasargod to quash the proceedings in view of the settlement arrived at between them and the de facto complainant under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. It is alleged in the petition that petitioners are the accused in C.P.No.223/13 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court No-I, Kasargod. A case was registered on the basis of the statement given by the de facto complainant first respondent herein against the petitioners as Crime No.407/13 of Kumbala Police Station of Kasargod District alleging offences under Sections 341, 324 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. After investigation, Annexure A1 final report has been filed which has been taken on file as C.P.No.223/13 Crl.M.C.No.1660 of 2014 : 2 : and pending before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No-I, Kasargod. Due to the intervention of mediators and the local people, the matter has been now settled between the parties. In fact, the incident occurred due to some labour dispute between them and that has now been settled. The first respondent does not want to proceed with the prosecution against the petitioners. Since some of the offences are non- compoundable in nature, they could not compound the case before the court below. So, they have no other option except to approach this court seeking the following relief:
"To quash Annexure A-1 Final Report and all further proceedings in C.P.No.223/2013 of J.F.M.C-I, Karargod (Crime No.407/2013 of Kumbala police Station) as against the petitioners/accused persons in this petition, in the interest of justice."
3. First respondent appeared through Counsel and submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties and he does not want to prosecute the case in view of the settlement and harmony has been restored between them. He had also filed an affidavit in support of the same. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in view of the settlement, there is no possibility of conviction and it will Crl.M.C.No.1660 of 2014 : 3 : be only a wastage of time, if the prosecution is allowed to continue. So, he prayed for allowing the application.
4. The Learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, as directed by this court, submitted that, except this case there is no other case against the petitioners and since offence under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is incorporated, it is not a case to be quashed at this stage.
5. It is an admitted fact that on the basis of the statement given by the first respondent herein as de facto complainant, a case was registered as Crime No.407/13 of Kumbala Police Station against the petitioners alleging offences under Sections 341, 324 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. After investigation, Annexure A1 final report has been filed and it was taken on file as C.P.No.223/13 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kasargod. Now, the matter has been settled between the parities. First respondent filed Annexure 2 affidavit stating that, the incident occurred due to some labour dispute that arose in a timber mill where both the petitioners Crl.M.C.No.1660 of 2014 : 4 : and the de facto complainant were working. Due to the of intervention of mediators and well wishers, the entire dispute has been settled and harmony between them has been restored. Now they are working together happily.
6. It is true that offence under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been incorporated in the case and it is a special enactment that has been enacted by the Parliament so as to protect the interest of certain categories of persons mentioned in the statute and avoid atrocities being caused to them on account of their caste factor. It is true in serious matters like this, this court should not normally invoke the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure as it cannot be treated as a case of individuals, but, affecting a particular society for whose benefit the enactment has been enacted and it is a public issue. But, when a victim of such incident comes before the court and says that the matter has been settled and there was no atrocity as such caused to him and it was due to some misunderstanding that the case itself has been initiated and due to the intervention of parties, their relationship has been restored, then, court must honour the Crl.M.C.No.1660 of 2014 : 5 : wish of the victim so as to provide him a solace and to lead a happy life in the society along with others which has caused on account of the settlement.
7. In the decision reported in Gian Singh V. State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)], it is held as follows:
"The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing in criminal proceeding or F.I.R. 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. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. 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, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc; or the family disputes where the Crl.M.C.No.1660 of 2014 : 6 : wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of case, 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 proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding 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 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."
8. In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision and also considering the fact that the matter has been settled between the parities and harmony has been restored between the petitioners and the first respondent who belongs to different community on account of the settlement and also in view of the settlement, there is no possibility of conviction if the matter is allowed to continue, this court feels that it is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure has to be invoked to quash the proceedings to promote the settlement and harmony that has been restored between two community people and this should not be a Crl.M.C.No.1660 of 2014 : 7 : hurdle for that.
So, the application is allowed and further proceedings in C.P.No.223/13 (Crime No.407/2013 of Kumbala Police Station) now pending before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No-I, Kasargod as against the petitioners is quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to that court immediately for necessary further action.
Sd/-
K.Ramakrishnan, Judge.
Bb [True copy] P.A to Judge