Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE28H DAY OF MARCH20147TH CHAITHRA, 1936 Crl.MC.No. 1797 of 2014 ------------------------------------ C.C.NO. 404/2011 OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT .,KASARAGOD CRIME NO. 245/2011 OF VIDYA NAGAR POLICE STATION , KASARGOD ---------------------------- PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ 1. NAFI MOHAMMED, AGED25YEARS, S/O.NASAR, BENDICHAL, THEKKIL VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
2. EBRAHIM NADEER M.B., AGED25YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMEDKUNHI, REISIDING AT NADEER COTTAGE, BENDICHAL, THEKKIL VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
3. MUHAMMED RAFEEQ @ PARA RAFEEQ, AGED30YEARS, S/O.HASAINAR, BENDICHAL, THEKKIL VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
4. ABDUL RASHID T.A., AGED29YEARS, S/O.EBRAHIM THAIVALAPPU, BENDICHAL, THEKKIL VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
5. ABDUL RASHID B.A., AGED29YEARS, S/O.ABDULKHADER @ KAINHI, BENDICHAL, THEKKIL VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.S.JIJI RESPONDENTS/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MUHAMMADALI, AGED31YEARS, S/O.ABDULRAHIMAN, DELI HOUSE, KALANAD VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671 121.
2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. R1 BY ADV. SMT.MINI.V.A. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2803-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Msd. Crl.MC.No. 1797 of 2014 ---------------------------------- APPENDIX ---------------- PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES ------------------------------------------- ANNEXURE A1: CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CR.245/2011 OF VIDYANAGAR POLICE STATION, FILED BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT , KASARAGOD. ANNEXURE A2: AFFIDAVIT DATED0203/2014 SWORN BY THE1T RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES --------------------------------------------- NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE. Msd. K. Ramakrishnan, J.
============================== Crl.M.C.No. 1797 of 2014 ============================== Dated this, the 28th day of March, 2014. ORDER
This is an application filed by accused Nos. 1 to 5 in Crime No.245/11 of Vidyanagar Police Station to quash the proceedings on the basis of the settlement under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. It is alleged in the petition that petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 5 in Crime No.245/11 of Vidyanagar Police Station now pending as C.C.No.404/2011 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasargod which was registered on the basis of the statement given by the de facto complainant who is the first respondent herein alleging offence under Sections 143,147, 148, 341, 323, 324 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. The matter has been settled between the parties and there is no disputes subsisting between the parties. The settlement was arrived at on the basis of the intervention of mediators and friends. No purpose will be served by proceeding with the investigation. So, they have no other option except to approach this court seeking the following relief: Crl.M.C.No. 1797 of 2014 :
2. : "To quash the Annexure.A-1, Final Report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.404/2011 of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasargod 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 has no objection in quashing the proceedings. The Counsel for the petitioners also submitted that in view of the settlement, no purpose will be served by proceeding with the investigation and he prayed for allowing the application.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, as directed by this court, submitted that except this case, there is no other case against the petitioners and they have no criminal background but opposed the application.
5. It is an admitted fact that on the basis of the statement given by first respondent who is the de facto complainant, Vidyanagar police has registered a case against the petitioners alleging offences under Sections 143,147, 148, 341, 323, 324 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. After investigation, final report has been filed and it is now pending as C.C.No.404/11 on the files of Chief Judicial Crl.M.C.No. 1797 of 2014 :
3. : Magistrate Court, Kasargod. In the meantime the petitioners and the de facto complainant had settled the claim due to the intervention of mediators and that is evidenced by Annexure A2 affidavit of the de facto complainant. In view of the settlement of the matter, the de facto complainant or his witness will support the case of the prosecution and no purpose will be served by proceeding with the case as well.
6. Further, in the decision reported in Gian Singh V. State of Punjab [2012(4) KLT108(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 Crl.M.C.No. 1797 of 2014 :
4. : 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 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." 7. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and also considering the fact that the matter has been settled between the parties due to the intervention of mediators and no purpose will be served in allowing the prosecution to continue with the trial of the case as the de facto complainant or his witness will support the case of the prosecution, 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 as proceeding with the investigation will only amount to wastage of judicial time. So, the application is allowed and further proceedings in Crl.M.C.No. 1797 of 2014 :
5. : C.C.No.404/2011 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasargod, (Crime No.245/11 of Vidyanagar Police Station) against the petitioners is quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasargod to inform the concerned police station about the order for necessary further action. Sd/- K.Ramakrishnan, Judge. Bb [True copy] P.A to Judge