Thanseer Ahmed vs The State and Others

Rathnakala, J.—Since the parties in both the cases are common and common question of law would arise for consideration, both cases are taken together for consideration.

The petitioner in both cases viz., Thanseer Ahmed, on the complaint of second respondent/Shanthi Prasad Hegde, has been charge sheeted for the offence under Sections 341 , 326 and 307 of IPC by the respondent/Police in Crime No. 207/2013. Now the case is committed to the Sessions Court in S.C. No. 11/2015 pending on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru.

On the complaint of very same petitioner, the respondent No. 1/Police registered a case in Crime No. 208/2013 against the complainant/respondent No. 2 herein and eight others and the accused are charge sheeted for the offence under Sections 279 , 337 , 143 , 147 , 148 , 323 , 324 , 307 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 30 of Arms Act. Now the case is committed to the Sessions Court; S.C. No. 41/2015 is pending on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru.

The allegation of the prosecution in Crime No. 207/2013 (Crl. P. No. 4293/2015) is, on 25.9.2013 at 14:00 hours while the complainant/Shanthi Prasad Hegde was taking his Innova Car backwards, accidentally it touched Tanseer Ahmed/accused No. 1 therein causing injury to his body; he waylaid the complainant, dragged him by his collar, squeezed his neck, verbally abused and put threat to his life; the complainant since was scared, pulled out his Revolver, the accused caught hold of the hand of the complainant and with another hand, squeezed the neck of the complainant; by that time, there was firing in air twice. During the effort of the complainant to wriggle out from the clutches of the accused, he suffered grievous injury, etc.

The allegation of the prosecution in Crime No. 208/2013 (Crl. P. No. 4294/2015) is, on 25.9.2013 at 13:35 hours, while the complainant/Thanseer Ahmed was proceeding on the road, all of a sudden, accused No. 1/Shanthi Prasad Hegde took his Innova car backwards, the car dashed against Thanseer Ahmed causing injuries; since Thanseer Ahmed took exception for the accident with the accused No. 1, there was an altercation between the two; accused No. 1 took out his Revolver and threatened to finish him off and fired twice. One bullet was shot to the air and the other hit the window of a nearby shop and other accused, who assembled there, joined Shanthi Prasad Hegde, fisted and assaulted Thanseer Ahmed by causing injury.

Today, the petitioner/Thanseer Ahmed and accused persons/respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and 6 to 8 of Crime No. 208/2013 are present before the Court. Petitioner has filed an affidavit, which reads thus:

"I, Mr. Thanseer Ahmed, aged 21 years, son of Abdul Khader, Residing at Thouseef Manzil, Jyothi Nagara, Pranthya Village, Moodbidri, Mangaluru Taluk, now having come down to Bengaluru, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:

I say that I am the deponent herein and Petitioner in the above petition.

I say that I was a student in Western Institute of Technology, and on 25-09-2013 while I was proceeding on the road, an Innova car while taking reverse hit me from behind. I sustained abrasion on my left hand. I came very angry and went and held the driver. He also became very angry and I saw that he was removing the revolver and I tried to seize it from his hands. He fired at the air. Then I ran away. I was under the misunderstanding that he was trying to fire at me, and the general public thought that I was a thief and hence they pelted stones at me.

I say that later, I came to know that Respondent No. 2 is a reputed person of the locality and a practicing Advocate and since there was danger to his life, he was possessing licenced revolver. He had not attempted to fire at me. He did not misuse his revolver. He tried to protect himself. Because of misunderstanding, he fired at the air. But on account of the misunderstanding, I gave wrong information to the Police. The statement made by me in my complaint are not true. Under misconception, I lodged the said complaint. Now I have realized that the allegations made in my complaint are not true.

I say that later, at the intervention of the well-wishers in the village, the matter has been compromised and we have been living very peacefully. My father is employed in Bahrain since 20 years and I wish to go abroad immediately. I am waiting for finishing this case. I do not want to continue this prosecution.

I say that I have no allegations against the prosecution or the Investigating Agency. I withdrawn the allegations made by me in my petition against the prosecution/Investigating Agency.

Therefore, I pray that the proceedings may kindly be quashed".

Second respondent/Shanthi Prasad Hegde has filed an affidavit, which reads thus:

"I, Sri Shanthi Prasad Hegde, Aged 40 years, Son of Shridhar Hegde, Residing at Kerdila House, Thodar Village and Post, Moodbidri, Mangaluru Taluk, now having come down to bengaluru do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:

I say that I am the deponent herein and Respondent No. 2 in the above petition.

I say that I am the first information in Crime No. 207/2013 of Moodbidri Police Station. Since there were threats to my life, I was granted licence to possess revolver and accordingly, I was holding a licenced revolver. I have been practicing as an Advocate in Moodbidri and since I was appearing in some cases, the opponents in those cases in the Courts had held out threats to my life, I was apprehending danger to my life.

I say that on 25-09-2013, after finishing my court work, I went to my office which is near the Court at 2 P.M., and from the office I proceeded towards the school of my child in my Innova car, and when I was taking reverse of the car, my car accidentally touched the pedestrian/Petitioner herein. At that time, he was unknown to me. He came very angry and suddenly came near me and took me to task. I did not notice that my car while taking reverse had touched him/petitioner herein. Since he immediately came to me threatening to physically assault me, I apprehend that somebody had come to murder me. I was in the driver''s seat. And I feared for my life. Therefore, I took out the licenced revolver. Petitioner became upset on seeing the revolver and tried to snatch. I thought that he was trying to kill me. Therefore, I fired at the air, to protect myself. He ran away and local people tried to get hold of him and ran into and took shelter in a local Mosque. The people thought that the petitioner was absconding, and therefore, they pelted stones and handed over him to the Police.

However, later I came to know that the petitioner was only a student and my vehicle had touched while I was taking reverse, and therefore, he was very angry on me. However, he had no intention of committing offence. But I was under the misconception, and therefore, I was under the wrong impression that he had come to commit some offence. With that suspicion, I lodged the complaint.

However, after lodging the complaint, later, I came to know that he is from my area itself. Friends and well-wishers of the petitioner and my friends and well-wishers and the prominent persons of the locality made their best efforts to compromise the matter since both of us belong to same area. I have realized that the entire incident occurred on account of some misunderstanding. The allegations made by me in the complaint was only on account of some suspicion but now I have come to know that my suspicion against the petitioner is not true.

I say that there was no previous enmity between me and the petitioner. The incident occurred only on account of trivial misunderstanding. I do not wish to continue the prosecution against the petitioner. The matter was compromised much before filing this petition before the Hon''ble Court, at the intervention of elders and prominent persons of the locality. And all of us are residing very peacefully. Since the incident belongs two persons of different community, in the Village, we decided to settle all the disputes to maintain peace and cordiality in the village.

I say that I have voluntarily compromised the matter. We have become very good friends with the petitioner, and the petitioner is also a very good person without any criminal antecedents. This compromise has helped to re-establish tranquility in our area. If the prosecution is not quashed, we will suffer irreparably and it may lead to re-opening the compromised issues. This compromise is in the best interest of both of us.

It is, therefore, prayed that the petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed, in the interest of justice".

What emerges from the conjoint reading of both affidavits is, the alleged incident of 25.9.2013 was accidental, not premeditated. Both parties were strangers to each other. The entire incident was an accident whereby the Innova car driven by Shanthi Prasad Hegde accidentally touched Thanseer Ahmed and caused injury. What further emerges is that, both persons allowed their imagination to militate against each other, perhaps due to reason that they belong to different communities. It also emerges that the Revolver which was in possession of Shanthi Prasad Hegde and used during the incident, was licensed one and he had every authority to use the same for his self-defence in accordance with the terms of the licence. It further emanates that, respondent Nos. 3 to 8 by chance were present at the scene of occurrence and have perhaps overreacted to the incident.

As per the submission at the Bar, now both the cases are at the stage of argument before framing charge. It is the submission at the Bar that, respondent No. 2/Shanthi Prasad Hegde is a practicing Advocate of Moodabidri and the petitioner/Thanseer Ahmed is a student and he proposes to join his parents at Bahrain.

The Apex Court in a judgment reported in Narinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another, observed as under:

"28. Having said so, we would hasten to add that though it is a serious offence as the accused person(s) attempted to take the life of another person/victim, at the same time the court cannot be oblivious to hard realities that many times whenever there is a quarrel between the parties leading to physical commotion and sustaining of injury by either or both the parties, there is a tendency to give it a slant of an offence under Section 307 IPC as well. Therefore, only because FIR/Charge sheet incorporates the provision of Section 307 IPC would not, by itself, be a ground to reject the petition under Section 482 of the Code and refuse to accept the settlement between the parties..........."

The Apex Court in an identical situation as that of present cases, in the matter of Yogendra Yadav Vs. The State of Jharkhand, held that, it was an instance of case and counter case. While addressing the question whether it can compound the offence under Sections 326 and 307 of IPC, which are not compoundable, observes thus"

"However, when the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and, therefore, do not affect public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them. In such cases, the prosecution becomes a lame prosecution. Pursuing such a lame prosecution would be waste of time and energy. That will also unsettle the compromise and obstruct restoration of peace."

In the said case, compromise was accepted.

In the light of the above, now it becomes incumbent for the Court to appreciate the compromise entered into between the parties, which will go a very long way; it is not only in respect of their personal life but also in keeping the peace and harmony of the entire locality. Though the offence under the Arms Act is invoked, having regard to the case of the prosecution that it was a licensed Revolver and it was used by respondent No. 2 for his self-defence under mistaken notion that he is being attacked, I hold that there is no impediment to quash both criminal proceedings.

Learned Counsel for the respondents in Crl. P. No. 4294/2015 files a memo, which reads thus:

"It is most respectfully submitted as herebelow:

That the respondent No. 5 Prasanth Poojary whose accused No. 4 in the above case has died on 9.10.2015. Hence, the proceedings against the respondent No. 5/accused No. 4 has been abetted."

In that view of the matter, criminal proceeding in S.C. No. 41/2015 as against respondent No. 5 stands abated.

Both the petitions are allowed. The criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner/Thanseer Ahmed in S.C. No. 11/2015 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru and S.C. No. 41/2015 pending on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, against the accused persons/respondent Nos. 2 to 8 (except respondent No. 5 of Criminal Petition No. 4294/2015), are hereby quashed.

In view of the disposal of the main petitions, I.A. No. 1/2015 in both cases do not survive for consideration. Hence, they stand disposed of.