Aadil T. and others v. State of Kerala and Rajas V.K.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
Judgment Date: 2016-11-09
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is allowed; the final report and all proceedings in SC No.857/2015, and related proceedings, are quashed.
Final Disposition: Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Aadil T.
Asjid Zakariya P.V.
Musthaque A.V.
Aneer B.

Respondents

State of Kerala
Rajas V.K.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SRI.M.MUHAMMED SHAFI

Counsels for Respondents

• SRI.P.M.MOHAMMED HASSAN
• SRI.T.R.RENJITH

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482 CrPC filed in the Kerala High Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings in SC No.857/2015, on the file of the Additional District Court-I, Thalassery, arising from Payangadi Police Station Crime No.394/2015. The petitioners—Aadil T., Asjid Zakariya P.V., Musthaque A.V., and Aneer B.—are accused of offences under Sections 341, 323, and 324 read with Section 34 IPC. The second respondent, the de facto complainant, alleges that on 25 April 2015, at about 2:30 p.m., the petitioners restrained him and assaulted him with a stone and a stick in furtherance of a common intention, causing injuries. The petition contends that the dispute has been amicably resolved, and continuing the prosecution would not serve public interest, would undermine peace, and would amount to abuse of process; it is urged that quashing would promote ends of justice. The State, through the Public Prosecutor, expresses reservations about invoking 482 in such a context but notes there are no other cases against the petitioners. Citing Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, the court reiterates that amicable settlements may justify quashing to secure ends of justice and prevent abuse of process. The court ultimately allows the petition, quashing SC No.857/2015 and all related proceedings and the final report.

Provisions of Law Cited

CrPC Section 482IPC Sections 341, 323, 324 read with Section 34

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ends of justice
Abuse of process of law
Amicable settlement as basis to quash proceedings (as per Gian Singh and Narinder Singh)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that the dispute is personal and there is an amicable settlement between the victim and the accused. They contend that quashing would advance ends of justice and prevent abuse of process, especially since the offences are not grave and the continuation of prosecution would be a waste of time given the unlikely prospect of conviction. They rely on principle that where settlement exists, quashing may be appropriate to secure ends of justice.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents’ counsel notes the settlement but expresses reservations about invoking Section 482 in such cases. The State maintains that quashing should not be routine, emphasizing the need to consider public interest and the potential for abuse of process, even in the presence of settlement. No other cases are reported against the petitioners.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 10 SCC 303	Positive	Cited to support that, in appropriate cases, amicable settlements between victims and wrongdoers can justify quashing to secure ends of justice and prevent abuse of process.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	2014 6 SCC 466	Positive	Cited for the guidance that settlement, to secure ends of justice or prevent abuse of process, can warrant exercising 482 CrPC powers.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** ## **WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/18TH KARTHIKA, 1938** ## **Crl.MC.No. 6806 of 2016 ()** ## **---------------------------** ## **SC 857/2015 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT-1,THALASSERY CRIME NO. 394/2015 OF PAYANGADI POLICE STATION , KANNUR** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:** - **---------------------** **1. AADIL T.** - **S/O.MUHAMMED ALI A.T. THERLAYI HOUSE, MATTOOL CENTRAL NEAR GOVT.HIGH SCHOOL, MATTOOL MATTOOL P.O., KANNUR-670302.** **2. ASJID ZAKARIYA P.V.** - **S/O.CHERIYAKATH SAKARIA, SALMATH MAHAL MATTOOL SOUTH, NEAR THANGALA PALLI, MATTOOL SOUTH P.O., KANNUR-670302.** **3. MUSTHAQUE A.V.** - **S/O.MAHAMOOD K.K., ARAKKA VALAPPIL, MATTOOL CENTRAL NEAR GOVT.HIGH SCHOOL, MATTOOL MATTOOL P.O., KANNUR-670302.** **4. ANEER B. S/O.AHAMMED K., BAPPUNTAVIDA, MATTOOL SOUTH NEAR THANGALA PALLI, MATTOOL SOUTH P.O. KANNUR-670302.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.M.MUHAMMED SHAFI** ## **Crl.MC.No. 6806 of 2016** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT:** **---------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA** **SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAYANGADI POLICE STATION) REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **2. RAJAS V.K.** **S/O.ABDULLA M.V., AGED 19 YEARS RAJAS MANZIL, NEAR HEALTH CENTRE, MATTOOL SOUTH P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670302.** **R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.M.MOHAMMED HASSAN R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.T.R.RENJITH** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.MC.No. 6806 of 2016** ## **APPENDIX** **ANNEXURE-A1: COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET ALONG WITH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.394 OF 2015 OF PAYANGADI POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE-A2: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 07.09.2016.** **//TRUE COPY//** **PA TO JUDGE** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V., J.** ------------------------------------------ ## **Crl.M.C. No.6806 of 2016** -----------------------------------------Dated this the 9[th] day of November, 2016 ## **O R D E R ~~~~~~~~** - 1.This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( hereinafter referred to as the Code ) with a prayer to invoke the extraordinary inherent powers and to quash the pending criminal proceedings. - 2.The petitioners herein are the accused in S.C.No.857 of 2015 on the file of the Additional District Court,-I, Thalassery. In the aforesaid case, they are being proceeded against for having committed offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The 2[nd] respondent is the de facto complainant. - 3.The prosecution allegation is that on 25.4.2015 at about 2.30 p.m., the petitioners in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained the 2[nd] respondent herein and Crl.M.C. No. 6806 of 2016 **-2-** assaulted him with a stone and stick , and caused injuries. - 4.Heard the submissions advanced. - 5.The learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. Attention of this Court is invited to the affidavit filed by him to buttress his submission. It is urged that the dispute is purely personal in nature and would not affect public peace or tranquility. Summing up it is prayed that the criminal proceedings be terminated to promote peace and harmony. - 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 482 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.I have considered the submissions . 8.In **Gian singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303** Apex Crl.M.C. No. 6806 of 2016 **-3-** 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. It was observed as follows : “61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.” 9.The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in ## **Narinder singh v. State of Punjab. (2014) 6 SCC 466,** the pertinent observations which are as under: xxxx xxxx xxxx 29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor Crl.M.C. No. 6806 of 2016 **-4-** in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. xxxx xxxx xxxx 10.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. It is felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and secure the ends of justice. Even otherwise, persisting with the prosecution would be nothing but a waste of time as the prospects of conviction would be bleak. - 11.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 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings. Crl.M.C. No. 6806 of 2016 **-5-** In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A1 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as S.C.No.857 of 2015 on the file of the Additional District Court-I, Thalassery are quashed. **Sd/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V. JUDGE** Ps/11/11/16