IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/28TH ASWINA, 1938 Crl.MC.No. 6607 of 2016 () CRIME NO. 78/2016 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION , KASARGOD PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED: 1. FARSI AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.KHALID.C.H., RESIDING AT NHANIKADAVU, P.O.OZHINJAVALAPPU. 2. MURSHID AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.MUSTHAFA, RESIDING AT NHANIKADAVU, P.O.OZHINJAVALAPPU. 3. SAIFU AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.ABDULLA, RESIDING AT NHANIKADAVU, P.O.OZHINJAVALAPPU. 4. RITHU AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.MUSTHAFA, RESIDING AT NHANIKADAVU, P.O.OZHINJAVALAPPU. 5. IRSHAD AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.ASHARAF, RESIDING AT NHANIKADAVU, P.O.OZHINJAVALAPPU. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS RESPONDENT(S)/STATE: 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING S.H.O. HOSDURG POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. CONTD :2: Crl.MC.No. 6607 of 2016 () 2. YOUNUS.C.H. AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.MOIDU, CHIRAMMAL HOUSE, HOSDURG, OZHINHAVALAPPU, KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671121. R2 BY ADV. SRI.A.L.GEORGE R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CONTD :3: Crl.MC.No. 6607 of 2016 () APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ANNEXURE-A1: TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.78/2016 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE-A2: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30.9.2016. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE SKS [ENTITY], J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [CASE NUMBER] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 20th October, 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ORDER
1.This petition is filed under [SECTION] of the Code [ACT].
2.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 to 5 in [CASE NUMBER] of the Hosdurg Police Station. They are accused of having committed offences punishable under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] of the [ACT].
3.The prosecution allegation is that, on 27.01.2016 at about 11.30 pm, the petitioners blocked the car of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant and kidnapped him and thereafter assaulted him causing injuries. It is also alleged that a sum of Rs. 62,000/- and a Samsung smart phone was stolen from the possession of the de facto complainant.
4.The 2nd respondent has entered appearance through his counsel and has filed Annexure-A2 affidavit wherein he has stated that he has settled the disputes and has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners. He asserts in the affidavit that he does not wish that the criminal proceedings against the petitioners should continue.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, this Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings.
6.The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions has expressed his reservations in the matter of quashing the proceedings on the basis of settlement. It is submitted that the invocation of powers under [SECTION] of the Code in a case of this nature is not warranted. However, it is submitted that no other cases are reported against the petitioners.
7.In [PRECEDENT], the Apex Court has crystalised the position in respect of the powers vested in the High Court under [SECTION] of the [ACT], to quash criminal proceedings. It was held that the power vested in the High Court under [SECTION] of the [ACT], is not limited to quashing proceedings within the ambit and scope of [SECTION] of the [ACT]. The three - Judge Bench in the above case, clearly expounded, that quashing of criminal proceedings under [SECTION] of the [ACT], could also be based on settlements between private parties, and could also on a compromise between the offender and the victim. Only that, the above power did not extend to crimes against the society. It is also relevant to mention, that the jurisdiction vested in the High Court under [SECTION] of the [ACT], for quashing criminal proceedings, was held to be exercisable in criminal cases having an overwhelming and predominatingly civil flavour, particularly offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership, or such like transactions. In all such cases, the parties should have resolved their entire dispute by themselves, mutually. Further, guidelines were issued by the Apex Court in [PRECEDENT] and recently in [PRECEDENT].
8.I have considered the rival submissions and I have gone through the materials on record. The offence committed by the petitioners cannot be said to be grave and serious having ingredients of extreme mental depravity. It also does not appear that the offence in this case will have a serious impact on the society. More over, when the respondent No.2 has settled the matter, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and the continuation of the criminal case against the petitioners would be a futile exercise. It would also put the petitioners and the 2nd respondent to great oppression and prejudice.
9.Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court will be well justified in invoking its extra ordinary powers under [SECTION] of the Code to quash the proceedings.
In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure- A1 FIR in [CASE NUMBER] of Hosdurg Police Station and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners are quashed.
[ENTITY], JUDGE SKS TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE