Kerala High Court
Mohammed Ashiq @ Muhammed Ashif vs The State Of Kerala on 18 July, 2012
Author: V.K.Mohanan
Bench: V.K.Mohanan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/20TH BHADRA, 1935
Crl.MC.No. 3813 of 2013 ()
-------------------------------------
CC 927/2012 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -V, KOZHIKODE.
CRIME NO. 304/2012 OF FEROKE POLICE STATION , KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
.......
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
------------------------------------------
1. MOHAMMED ASHIQ @ MUHAMMED ASHIF
S/O. UMMER, AADURAYIL HOUSE, PUNNAYUR
CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
2. MUHAMMED FAROOK, S/O. BAPPU, PUNNAYUR, CHAVAKKAD
THRISSUR DISTRICT.
3. JAVAD.K.P. S/O. MOIDUTTY, KANJIRAPALLY,PUNNAYUR
CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
4. ASHARAF.K.P., S/O. KUNHIMON, KUNNAKKAYIL, PUNNAYUR
CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
5. RIYAS, S/O. MUHAMMEDKUTTY, KARUVEETTIL, PUNNAYUR
CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
6. ABDUL NAZAR, S/O. KHADER, BAVUMMAL, KUTTIKARIPADAM
PUNNAYUR, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.BABU S. NAIR
SRI.K.RAKESH
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/INJURED:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31.
2. ASHIK ALI.A.,S/O. ASHARAFUDHEEN, SHIFAS HOUSE, MUKKADA
PARIPPALLI.P.O., CHATHANNUR TALUK
KOLLAM DISTRICT-691574.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN
R2 BY ADV. SRI.R.RANJITH (K/489/2011)
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11-09-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
tss
Crl.MC.No. 3813 of 2013 ()
------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------
ANX.A. TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME NO. 304/2012 OF THE FEROKE POLICE
STATION, DATED 18-7-2012.
ANX.B TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF EVIDENCE AND CHARGE SHEET IN
CRIME NO. 304/2012 OF THE FEROKE POLICE STATION.
ANX.C TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
BEFORFE ANOTARY PUBLIC DATED 30-7-2013.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
---------------------------------------
NIL
TRUE COPY
P.A. TO JUDGE
tss
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.3813 of 2013
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of September, 2013
ORDER
The above petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') at the instance of the petitioners, who are the accused in C.C.No.927 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-V, Kozhikode which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No.304 of 2012 of Feroke Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 341, 323, 324, 294B & 506(i) read with Section 34 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure-A F.I.R. and Annexure-B Charge Sheet in Crime No.304 of 2012 of Feroke Police Station and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.927 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-V, Kozhikode as the matter is settled out of court.
2. The allegation in the above case is that on 17/07/2012, at about 18.00 hrs., the accused trespassed into the ground floor of an apartment and Crl.M.C.No.3813 of 2013 :-2-:
assaulted the de facto complainant after locking the room and thus caused injuries. Thus, according to the prosecution, the accused six in number committed the offences punishable under Sections 448, 341, 323, 324, 294B & 506(i) read with Section 34 of I.P.C. Now the case of the petitioners is that, during the pendency of the above case, the dispute is settled with the second respondent, who is the de facto complainant who has sworn into Annexure-C affidavit.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the 2nd respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, during the pendency of the above case, the dispute is settled amicably between the parties which is the subject matter of the above case. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above case is abuse of process of law and proceedings.
5. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondent Crl.M.C.No.3813 of 2013 :-3-:
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.
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-C 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 under Sections 448, 341, 323, 324, 294B & 506(i) read with Section 34 of I.P.C. 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 2nd respondent, it appears to me that the de Crl.M.C.No.3813 of 2013 :-4-:
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:-
"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 Crl.M.C.No.3813 of 2013 :-5-:
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. 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 conviction of the accused, rather the net result would be sheer waste of judicial time and abuse of process of Crl.M.C.No.3813 of 2013 :-6-:
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-A F.I.R. and Annexure-B Charge Sheet in Crime No.304 of 2012 of Feroke Police Station and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.927 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-V, Kozhikode.
V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE skj