Allowed

Ibrahim C.H v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC31 May 2016Crl.MC/2480/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings under Section 326 IPC. The court accepted a settlement between the accused and the de facto complainant, finding the dispute private and the compromise voluntary, referencing Supreme Court precedents to quash the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings against the petitioner in C.C No.123 of 2014 shall stand quashed.

Ibrahim C.H Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2016/10TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC. No. 2480 of 2016 ()

¶6

CC NO.123/2014 ON THE FILES OF CHIEF JUDICIALL MAGISTRATE COURT, KASARAGOD IN CRIME NO. 198/2013 OF VIDYANAGAR POLICE STATION, KASARGOD.

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

IBRAHIM C.H, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED, R/AT KOLACHIYADKAM HOUSE, P.O.EDANEER, PADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER VIDYANAGER, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶12

ABDUL AZEEZ,

¶13

AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED YUSAF HAJEE, R/AT KOLACHIYADKAM HOUSE, P.O.EDANEER, PADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671127.

¶14

R2 BY ADV. SMT. C.B.SUMADEVI

¶15

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Crl.MC. No.2480 of 2016 ()

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶20

ANNEXURE-I: TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.198/2013 DT.29/04/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KASARAGOD.

¶21

ANNEXURE-II: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:-NIL

KRJ

//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J

¶27

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C No.2480 of 2016

¶28

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated 31^st May, 2016

¶29

ORDER

¶30

1.The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C No.123 of 2014 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasaragod involving offence punishable under Section 326 of the India Penal Code.

¶31

2.The second respondent herein is the de facto complainant. The petitioner has come up with this petition seeking to quash the above criminal proceedings on the sole ground that the dispute between the second respondent and the petitioner has been settled by means of compromise.

¶32

3.Prosecution allegation is that on 28.3.2013 at 9:10AM, the petitioner who was travelling in his car bearing Reg. No.KL-14F-3148 intentionally dashed into scooter of the de facto complainant causing injury. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the matter has been resolved between the parties with the avowed objective to maintain peace and harmony.

¶33

Crl.MC.2480/16

¶34

-:2:-

¶35

4.The second respondent has entered appearance through counsel and he has also sworn to Annexure-II affidavit wherein it has been emphatically stated that there has been harmonious settlement of all the disputes and that he does not intend to prosecute the petitioner anymore.

¶36

5.The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that the petitioner was involved in another crime and he was acquitted by the court below. It is also submitted that the petitioner along with others had involved themselves in a crime registered by Vidyanagar Police Station which is a counter case to Crime No.605 of 2014 of the same police station. Both crimes are private in nature and there is no public element .

¶37

6.The learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent endorses the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and submits that he does not intend that the criminal proceedings against the petitioners should continue any further.

¶38

7.It is thus borne out from the submissions made at the Bar that

¶39

Crl.MC.2480/16

¶40

-:3:-

¶41

the parties have amicably settled their disputes on their own free will and without any kind of pressure, influence or coercion. The compromise, it is felt, is voluntarily and genuine and can be acted upon. 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 .

¶42

8.In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303) ,

¶43

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 .

¶44

9.It was held that the 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. It was held that certain categories of cases involving

¶45

Crl.MC.2480/16

¶46

-:4:-

¶47

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 as those offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. But those cases where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and those in which the parties have resolved their entire dispute could fittingly be quashed by this court taking into account the compromise between the offender and victim. In such cases the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused and the de facto complainant to great oppression and prejudice

¶48

10.After having anxiously considered the submissions it is felt

¶49

that it would be unfair and contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding. It would only tantamount to abuse of process of law to subject the parties to the ordeal of a protracted criminal proceeding despite the settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer. Settlement will augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and

Crl.MC.2480/16

-:5:-

harmony.