Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 4TH MAGHA, 1943 PETITIONERS:
1 ARSHAD.A AGED 35 YEARS S/O.ALIARUKUNJU,PULIMUTTOM VEEDU, POUNDUKADAVU,VALIYA VELI.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695021. 2 SHABEER, AGED 28 YEARS S/O.ASHRAF,RESIDING AT MANAKKATTIL VEEDU,POUNDKADAVU,KOCHUVELI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695021. 3 NIYAS.N, AGED 33 YEARS S/O NAZAR.P,RESIDING AT PALLINADA VEEDU, T.C.81/1128,POUNDKADAVU,VELIYAVELI.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-695021. 4 ANSARI, AGED 34 YEARS S/O.ALIYARKUNJU,PULIMUTTOM VEEDU, POUNDUKADAVU,VALIYA VELI.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-69521. 5 SUDHEESH, AGED 30 YEARS S/O VIJAYAN,RESIDING AT T.C.NO.99/904, RESIDING AT KAKADIVILAKOM,POUNDADAVU, KOCHUVELI,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695021. BY ADVS. J.R.PREM NAVAZ SHRI.SUMEEN S.
RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031. 2 MUNEER KHAN, S/O MUJEEB,RESIDING AT RESIDING AT THOPPIL VEEDU,PULIMUTTOM,POUNDKADAVU WARD, ATTIPRA VILLAGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,PIN- 695583. BY ADV AJOY VENU ADV. SREEJA V. - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 5 in Crime No.740 of 2020 of Thumba Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram registered for the offences punishable under Section 323, 324, 427, 447, 294(b), 506, 308 read with Section 34 of the IPC and under Section 3,4 & 5 of Explosive Substances Act (in short 'the Act').
2. The allegation of the prosecution is that, due to previous animosity against the 2nd respondent/defacto
complainant, the petitioners/accused persons 1 to 5, in furtherance of common intention, on 31.08.2020 at 20.30 hours, assaulted the defacto complainant with an iron rod on his head and also kicked on the back of his head. They also terrified the defacto complainant by throwing crackers and also destroyed the gate of the defacto complainant. Annexure-A1 is the FIR registered by the Thumba Police Station and the investigation is going on. This Crl.M.C. is filed by the petitioners seeking to quash all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A1.
3. Heard Sri.J.R.Prem Navaz, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Sreeja V., the learned Public Prosecutor for the first respondent and Sri.Ajoy Venu, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that
the entire matter between the parties have been settled and to substantiate the aforesaid settlement, Annexure-A2 affidavit has been filed. On going through the aforesaid affidavit, it can be seen that the second respondent specifically acknowledges the factum of settlement and he also expresses his no objection in terminating the proceedings against the petitioners prematurely.
The learned counsel for the second respondent also acknowledges the aforesaid settlement. In addition to that, the
learned Public Prosecutor placed before me a statement submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Thumba Police Station. It is discernible from the statement that the veracity of the settlement between the parties had been verified by him and a statement of the 2nd respondent in this regard has been recorded. On perusal of the aforesaid statement of the defacto complainant it is evident that, the matter has been settled between the parties and he has no subsisting grievances against the petitioners herein. It is also discernible that the parties are also neighbors, known to each other since child hood. He also expresses his no objection in quashing the proceedings against the petitioners. From the aforesaid documents, the genuineness of the settlement is established. The basic dispute between the parties is private in nature. It is true that among the offences alleged, Sections 3, 4 & 5 of the Explosives Act are also seen incorporated. However, on going through the contents of the FIR, the allegation based on which the aforesaid offences are to the effect that the petitioners had used crackers for terrifying the defacto complainant and his family members. It does not contain use of any other explosive substances, which is likely cause any serious damage to any one. Moreover, in the statement of the 2 nd respondent, which is recorded by the police, he has stated that, his earlier statement as to usage of cracker was on a misconception, as according to him, at the relevant time, he heard the sound of a cracker and it
created a wrong impression in his mind that, the petitioners have used the cracker. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that no fruitful purpose would be served by allowing the prosecution to go on. The chances of a successful prosecution are very bleak.
5. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another
[ 2012 (4) KLT 108], it was held by the Honorable Supreme Court that, the High Court can quash the criminal prosecution on the basis of settlement between the parties, if the offences alleged are not heinous or serious in nature. In this case, even though, the allegation is that of assault of the respondents 1 and 2, it is evident that, the same was the result of a dispute between the relatives and no criminal antecedents of the parties were also brought to my notice. The parties are neighbors and in
order maintain a good relationship between the parties , which is
necessary to maintain peace in the locality, it is only just and proper to terminate the proceedings. In the light of above, I am of the view that this is a fit case in which powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.PC can be invoked. Accordingly, Crl.M.C. is allowed and Annexure A1 FIR in
Crime No.740/2020 of Thumba Police Station and all further proceedings thereto are hereby quashed. Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE AJ APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5186/2020 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY FIR IN CRIME NO.740 OF 2020 OF THUMBA POLICE STATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. ANNEXURE A2 THE AFFIDAVIT SOLEMNLY AFFIRMED BY THE 2ND RESPONDEN/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT.