High Court of KeralaCrl.MC/4749/2015disposed of

Abdul Vahab.A.G. v. The State Of Kerala

2015-07-29Honourable Mr. Justice Alexander Thomas6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2015/7TH SRAVANA, 1937 Crl.MC.No. 4749 of 2015 () --------------------------- IN CC 1669/2012 of J.M.F.C.-I,HOSDRUG CRIME NO. 546/2012 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION , KASARGOD ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 6:

----------------------------------------------------

1. ABDUL VAHAB.A.G., AGED 31 YEARS S/O ABOOBACKER, RESIDING AT A.G HOUSE, CHAUVARY NORTH TRIKARIPUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK KASARAGOD DISTRICT

2. NAVAS . M, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O MUHAMMED KUNHI .K.N, RESIDING AT SAFIYA MANZIL THANKAYAM, NORTH TRIKARIPUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK KASARAGOD DISTRICT

3. RAMSHAD . M, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O MUHAMMED KUNHI .K.N, RESIDING AT SAFIYA MANZIL CHAUVARY, NORTH TRIKARIPUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK KASARAGOD DISTRICT

4. MOHAMMED JABIR, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O ABDUL KHADER, RESIDING AT MOOPANDAKATHU HOUSE THANKAYAM, NORTH TRIKARIPUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK KASARAGOD DISTRICT

5. NISSAR. T, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O MOIDEENKUTTY, RESIDING AT THELAPURATHU HOUSE THANKAYAM, NORTH TRIKARIPUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK KASARAGOD DISTRICT

6. V.P. FAISAL, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O ABBAS, RESIDING AT SULAIKHA MANZIL, THANKAYAM NORTH TRIKARIPUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK KASARAGOD DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU -2-

-2RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:

----------------------------------------

1. THE STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE, OFFICER CHANDERA POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM-682 031

2. SUKUMARAN. M.V S/O M. KOTTAN, RESIDING AT SUKILA NIVAS, CHAUVARY NORTH TRIKARIPUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK KASARAGOD DISTRICT 671 310

3. VISHALAKSHI. V.M W/O SUKUMARAN M.V, RESIDING AT SUKILA NIVAS, CHAUVARY NORTH TRIKARIPUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK KASARAGOD DISTRICT 671 310 R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN R2 & 3 BY ADV. SMT.G.SANGEETHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VS

Crl.MC.No. 4749 of 2015 () ------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- ANNEXURE A1 :

THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 546/2012 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION ANNEXURE A2 :

THE TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 546/12 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION ANNEXURE A3 :

THE AFFIDAVIT DT. 21/7/15 SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ANNEXURE A4 :

THE AFFIDAVIT DT. 21.7/15 SWORN IN THE 3RD RESPONDNET ANNEXURE A5 :

THE TRUE CERTIFIEED COPY OF THE MEMO OF EVIDENCE IN CRIME NO 546/12 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL ---------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE VS

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

======================= ======================= Dated this the 29th day of July, 2015

ORDER

The petitioners seek orders to quash the final report and further proceedings in Crime No.546/2012 of Chandera Police Station, registered under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 323, 427, 506(ii) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Orders are sought on the ground of amicable settlement of the whole dispute between the accused and the de facto complainant out of court. The de facto complainant is the 2nd respondent in this proceeding brought under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He has filed affidavit to the effect that he has settled the whole dispute with the accused and he has no grievance or complaint. The other person who sustained injuries in the alleged incident is the 3rd respondent. She has also filed affidavit to the effect that she has settled the dispute with the accused and she has no grievance or complaint now. 2.

In a catena of decisions, the Apex Court has held that in appropriate cases involving even non-compoundable offences, the High Court can quash prosecution by exercise of the powers

under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C., if the parties have really settled the whole dispute or if continuance of prosecution will not serve any purpose. Here, this Court finds a real case of settlement between the parties and it is also found that continuance of prosecution in such a situation will not serve any purpose other than wasting the precious time of the court, when the case ultimately comes before the court. On a perusal of the petition and on a close scrutiny of the investigation materials on record and the affidavit of settlement and taking into account the attendant facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the legal principles laid down by the Apex Court in the cases as in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 160 = (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh and others v.

State of Punjab and anr. reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, more particularly paragraph 29 thereof, could be applied in this case to consider the prayer for quashment. Accordingly, the impugned final report and further proceedings arising out of crime No.546/2012 of Chandera Police Station, including all further proceedings arising out of C.C.No.

herein will stand quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

With these observations and directions this Crl.M.C. stands finally disposed of.

Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE vs