Kerala High Court
Rafeeq vs State Of Kerala on 25 August, 2023
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 3RD BHADRA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 6066 OF 2023
CRIME NO.2429/2018 OF Attingal Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram
IN CC 156/2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,ATTINGAL
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 5:
1 RAFEEQ
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O ABDUL SAMAD, KUNNIL PUTHENVEEDU, KALLINMOODU,
ELAMPA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695103.
2 JAFAR
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O SULAIMAN, PLAVINMOODU PUTHANVILA VEEDU, KALLINMOODU,
ELAMPA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695103.
3 ANAS.A. SHAREEF
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O ABDUL SHAREEF, MUP HOUSE, KALLINMOODU, ELAMPA VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 695103.
4 RIYAS
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O ABDUL GAFOOR, KUNNUVILA VEEDU, NEAR JAMEELA ESTATE,
VALAKKAD, MUDAKKAL DESOM, EDAKKODE VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695103.
5 SAFEEQ
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O JALAL, PLAVINMOODU KUNNIL PUTHEN VEEDU, KALLINMOODU,
ELAMPA DESOM, ELAMPA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 695103.
BY ADV M.DINESH
RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031.
2 NOUSHAD
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O ABDUL KHARIM, VALYAVILA VEEDU, NEAR CHANTHAVILA
JUNCTION, CHANTHAVILA, AYIROOPARA, ATTINGAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695101.
SRI.T R RENJITH, SR. PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 6066 OF 2023 2
ORDER
This petition is filed invoking the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code" for the sake of brevity).
2. The petitioners herein are the accused in C.C No.156 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Attingal registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 447, 294(b), 427 and 506 of the IPC.
3. The prosecution allegation, as borne out from the records, are as under:
On 17.11.2018 at 10.30 p.m., the petitioners are alleged to have trespassed into the property of the party respondent and, after threatening him, caused damages in the property.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the parties have settled their dispute and do not wish to pursue the prosecution proceedings. He relies on the affidavit filed by the party respondent in support of his contentions. Counsel argues that if the proceedings are terminated, with the recording of the amicable settlement, the parties can move forward in an atmosphere of peace and mutual respect.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, has expressed reservations about quashing the proceedings solely on the basis of the settlement. He argues that the facts and circumstances may not warrant the CRL.MC NO. 6066 OF 2023 3 exercise of the court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, it is fairly submitted that there have been no other crimes of serious nature registered against the petitioners to date. It is further submitted that the statements of the party respondent have been recorded, and he has unequivocally stated that he does not have any lasting grievances.
6. I have considered the submissions and have gone through the records.
7. In State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan,1, a three-judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized the law as laid down in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab2, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab3 and in subsequent cases. It was laid down as under:
15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under:
15.1. That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;
15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;
15.3. Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special 1 (2019) 5 SCC 688 2 (2012) 10 SCC 303 3 2014 (6) SCC 466 CRL.MC NO. 6066 OF 2023 4 statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender;
15.4. Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act, etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act, etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge-sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paras 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;
15.5. While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offenses, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise, etc. CRL.MC NO. 6066 OF 2023 5
8. Having carefully analyzed the prayer sought in the light of the principles laid down above and also the nature of the allegations and the amicable relationship that now exists between the parties, I am of the considered opinion that quashing the proceedings on the basis of the settlement will not have any adverse impact on society. In fact, it would only serve to bring about peace and secure the ends of justice. Additionally, persisting with the prosecution would be a waste of time, as the prospects of convictions are bleak. In light of all of the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court would be well justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings.
This petition is allowed. Annexure-A2 Final Report in Crime No.2429 of 2018 of the Attingal Police Station and all further proceedings against the petitioners pending as C.C No.156 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Attingal, are quashed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
Sru
CRL.MC NO. 6066 OF 2023 6
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6066/2023
PETITIONERS ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME
NO.2429/2018 OF ATTINGAL POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT DATED 22.11.2018.
Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN C.C. NO.156/2019 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL I CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ATTINGAL WHICH AROSE FROM CRIME NO.2429/2018 OF ATTINGAL POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT DATED 27.11.2018.
Annexure A3 NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT WHICH RELATE TO THE SETTLEMENT OF ISSUES IN CRIME NO.2429/2018 OF ATTINGAL POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT DATED 21.7.2023.