Allowed

Mohammed Salahudheen E.K v. Union Territory Lakshadweep Administrator Kavarathy

Kerala HC2 Jul 2013Crl.MC/1632/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought to quash FIR and Final Report alleging offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 427, 448 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. Court allowed petition as matter settled out of court, citing Gian Singh. Continuing proceedings would cause abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Quashed Annexure-A1 FIR and Annexure-A2 Final Report in Crime No.18 of 2009 and all further proceedings in C.C.No.38 of 2011.

Mohammed Salahudheen E.K Vs Union Territory… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2013/11TH ASHADHA, 1935

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1632 of 2013

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN Crl.MC NO.3590/2012 DATED 21-11-2012

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC NO.38/2011 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ANDROTH

¶8

(CRIME NO.18/2009 OF ANDROTH POLICE STATION)

¶9

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.7:

¶10

MOHAMMED SALAHUDHEEN E.K., AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.SAYED MOHAMMED KOYA, EDAYAKAL HOUSE, ANDROTH ISLAND, LAKSHADWEEP-682 551.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.K.SASIKUMAR

¶12

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶13

1. UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, REPRESENTED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR, KAVARATHY, PIN-682 551.

¶14

2. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANDROTH, LAKSHADWEEP-682 551.

¶15

3. EDAYAKAL NALLA KOYA, S/O.T.KOYA, CHAMAYATH, EDAYAKAL, KEECHERY, ANDROTH, PIN-682 551.

¶16

R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,SC,LAKSHADWEEP ADMN. R3 BY ADV. SRI.SAYED MURTHALA THANGAL

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Kss

¶19

Crl.MC.No. 1632 of 2013

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶22

ANNEXURE-A1: COPY OF THE FIR NO.18/2009 DATED 18.4.2009 OF ANDROTH ISLAND POLICE STATION.

¶23

ANNEXURE-A2: COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 20.7.2011 IN C.C.NO.38/2011 FILED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ANDROTH.

¶24

ANNEXURE-A3: COPY OF DETAILED PETITION BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT RECORDED BY THE OFFICER IN CHARGE, POLICE STATION, ANDROTH ISLAND UT OF LAKSHADWEEP.

¶25

ANNEXURE-A4: COPY OF LETTER OF CW4, EYE WITNESS DATED 18.11.2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ANDROTH POLICE STATION.

¶26

ANNEXURE-A5: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.11.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT BEFORE THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ANDROTH POLICE STATION.

¶27

ANNEXURE-A6: COPY OF TEMPORARY IDENTITY CARD DATED 6.6.2012 FROM THE COAST GUARD REGION WHICH VALID TILL 5.12.2012.

¶28

ANNEXURE-A7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT BY THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN CRL.M.C.NO.3590/12 DATED 21.11.2012.

¶29

ANNEXURE-A8: AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT CONTENDING THAT ISSUE HAS BEEN SETTLED BETWEEN THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND THE PETITIONER.

¶30

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶31

----------------------------------------------N I L

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

Kss

V.K.MOHANAN, J.

Crl.M.C.No.1632 of 2013

¶37

Dated this the 02^nd day of July, 2013

¶38

ORDER

¶39

The above petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') at the instance of the petitioner, who is the 7^th accused in C.C.No.38 of 2011 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Androth which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No.18 of 2009 of Androth Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 427 & 448 read with Section 149 of IPC with a prayer to quash Annexure-A1 FIR and Annexure-A2 Final Report in Crime No.18 of 2009 of Androth Police Station and all further proceedings pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Androth in C.C.No.38 of 2011 as the matter is settled out of court.

¶40

The petitioner is the 7^th accused in Crime No.18 of 2009 of Androth Police Station, where the allegation is that he along with other accused 30 in numbers threw stones and sticks on the de facto complainant's house and caused

¶41

Crl.M.C.No.1632 of 2013

¶42

:-2-:

¶43

damages on 16/04/2009 due to political animosity and thereby committed the offeces punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 427 and 448 read with Section 149 of IPC. Now the case of the petitioner is that the matter is settled out of court. The de facto complainant is the 3^rd respondent herein, who has sworn into Annexure-A8 affidavit.

¶44

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶45

The learned counsel for the petitioner 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.

¶46

The learned counsel for the third respondent who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondent submitted that the above respondent, who is the de facto complainant does not intend to proceed any further against the

¶47

Crl.M.C.No.1632 of 2013

¶48

:-3-:

¶49

petitioner and he has no grievance against him.

¶50

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-A8 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.

¶51

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 143, 147, 148, 427 & 448 read with Section 149 of IPC 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 3^rd respondent, it appears to me that the de facto complainant has no further grievance against the

¶52

Crl.M.C.No.1632 of 2013

¶53

:-4-:

¶54

petitioner/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:-

¶55

“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..

¶56

It is further held as follows:-

¶57

“......... 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 arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc. or the

¶58

Crl.M.C.No.1632 of 2013

¶59

:-5-:

¶60

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........”

¶61

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

¶62

Crl.M.C.No.1632 of 2013

¶63

:-6-:

¶64

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.

¶65

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing Annexure-A1 FIR and Annexure-A2 Final Report in Crime No.18 of 2009 of Androth Police Station and all further proceedings pending against the petitioner in C.C.No.38 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Androth.

¶66

V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE

¶67

skj

¶68

True copy

¶69

P.A. to Judge

Mohammed Salahudheen E.K v. Union Territory Lakshadweep Administrator Kavarathy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Salahudheen E.K v. Union Territory Lakshadweep Administrator Kavarathy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Biju Vs Dhanya

Shaji Vs State of Kerala

N.Narayanan Vs State of Kerala

Abhilash K S Vs Ambili Babu

Sheikh Ashraf Hussain Vs Canara Bank

Jose P.L. Vs State of Kerala