Kerala High Court
Faisal vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 23 May, 2016
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
MONDAY,THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2016/2ND JYAISHTA, 1938
Crl.MC.No. 2884 of 2016 ()
---------------------------
SC.NO. 1400/2014 OF IST ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE
CRIME NO. 515/2011 OF NADAPURAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE
-------------------
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 6 :
--------------------------------------------------------
1. FAISAL
S/O.POCKER, AGED 27 YEARS, AKKANDIYIL HOUSE,
KADAMERI P.O., AAYANCHERRY VILLAGE,
KOZHIKODE.
2. FAHAD
S/O.IBRAHIM HAJI, AGED 29 YEARS, KAPPALIYIL HOUSE,
KUNIKKAD P.O., PURAMERI VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE.
3. AFSAL
S/O.MOIDU HAJI, AGED 26 YEARS
CHALIL HOUSE, KADAMERI P.O.,
CHALIKANDY, AAYANCHERRY VILLAGE,
KOZHIKODE.
4. JAMSHEED
S/O.KAREEM, AGED 27 YEARS
THAZHE NELLARATH HOUSE,
KADAMERI P.O., AAYANCHERRY VILLAGE,
KOZHIKODE.
5. ASLAH
S/O.KUNHALI, AGED 30 YEARS,
NUPLATA HOUSE, CHALIKKUNI,
KADAMERI P.O., AAYANCHERRY VILLAGE,
KOZHIKODE.
6. RASHID,
S/O.MOIDU, AGED 35 YEARS, PAKERIKKUNNI HOUSE,
KADAMERI P.O., AAYANCHERRY VILLAGE,
KOZHIKODE.
BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN
...2/-
Crl.MC.No. 2884 of 2016 () -2-
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS AND STATE :
---------------------------------------------------------------------
1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
NADAPURAM POLICE STATION,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 504.
2. RAJAN,
S/O.KANARAN, AGED 55 YEARS
KUNIYIL THAZHE KUNIYIL HOUSE,
KADAMERI P.O., AAYANCHERI AMSOM,
KADAMERI DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK,
KOZHIKODE - 673 101.
3. BALAN
S/O.KANNAN, AGED 55 YEARS
KANNANKUNNATH THAZHE KUNI HOUSE,
KAAMERI P.O., AYANCHERRY AMSOM,
KADAMERI DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK,
KOZHIKODE - 673 101
4. STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682031.
R1 & R4 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SAREENA GEORGE P.
R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Mn
...3/-
Crl.MC.No. 2884 of 2016 ()
-------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES :
--------------------------------------------
ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT.
ANNEXURE II THE TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE
2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS RESPECTIVELY
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES : NIL
----------------------------------------------------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
Mn
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J.
==================
Crl.M.C.No. 2884 of 2016
==================
Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2016
O R D E R
This application is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the "Code") seeking invocation of powers to quash pending Criminal Proceedings .
2. Crime No. 515 of 2011 was registered by the Nadapuram Police Station against the petitioners herein under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 341, 323, 324, 294(b), 307, 153(A) read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. After completion of the investigation, the final reports was laid before the jurisdictional Magistrate and the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Kozhikode and the same is now pending as S.C No. 1400 of 2014 on the file of Ist Additional District Court, Kozhikode .
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the disputes between the parties have been amicably resolved. Banking on Annexure II affidavit sworn to by the respondents 2 and 3, who are the Crl.M.C.No. 2884 of 2016 2 de facto complainant and the injured respectively, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the continuance of prosecution as against the petitioners would be nothing but an abuse of process of law.
5. The learned counsel who entered appearance on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 endorsed the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions, submitted a statement wherein it is reported that the petitioners 1 to 3 are accused in several other cases. It is also submitted that the petitioners 4, 5 and 6 have not involved themselves in any case within the limits of Nadapuram Police Station. It is further urged that the petitioners 1 and 3 are inveterate criminals and the offences charged under Section 307 and 153(A) of the IPC cannot be quashed on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the parties. According to the learned counsel the said offences are not private or personal and have an Crl.M.C.No. 2884 of 2016 3 adverse impact on the public order and tranquility.
7. The law with regard to the settlement of criminal disputes on the strength of an amicable resolution of the disputes between the parties is no more res integra.
8. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012 (10) SCC 303), Apex Court has laid down that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. This view was reiterated in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014 (6) SCC 466) and Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another (2014 (9) SCC 653)
9. However, it was held that such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve 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. Offences Crl.M.C.No. 2884 of 2016 4 under Section 307 of the IPC was also held to fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and it was held that those offences are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone unless special circumstances come to the notice of the Court to take a different view.
10. The Apex Court in State of M.P. v. Manish and Others (2015 (8) SCC 307) and also in State of M.P. v. Deepak and Others (2014 (10) SCC 285) has held that offence under Section 307 of the IPC is not to be treated as a private dispute between the parties inter se but is to be held to be a crime against the society. The petitioners are reported to be involved in several other crimes and it cannot be forgotten that they are being proceeded against for having committed offence under section 153 (A) of the IPC as well.
11. This Court is of the view that the proceedings against the petitioners cannot be quashed even though the Crl.M.C.No. 2884 of 2016 5 victim and the offender have settled the dispute as those offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society.
Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, Judge lsn