Abdu S/O Hamza Haji; Basheer S/O Alavi Haji; Abdul Razak S/O Muhammed; Subair Thangal S/O Pookoya Thangal v. State of Kerala and Anus Yusaf Yasin; Ameershan

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
Judgment Date: 2016-10-24
Court Decision / Holding: Petition allowed; quashed the proceedings in CC 452/2014 pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Malappuram; Annexure-A FIR and related proceedings are quashed.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; proceedings quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Abdu S/O Hamza Haji
Basheer S/O Alavi Haji
Abdul Razak S/O Muhammed
Subair Thangal S/O Pookoya Thangal

Respondents

The State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam (for the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kottakkal Police Station)
Anus Yusaf Yasin S/O Abdul Rasheed
Ameer Shan S/O Kunhumuammed

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. R. Ranjith (Manjeri)

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Amjad Ali (Public Prosecutor)
• Sri. M. Lisha (Advocate)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under section 482 CrPC before the Kerala High Court by four accused who seek to quash the criminal proceedings in CC 452/2014 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Malappuram. The petitioners are charged along with the State and the private respondents for offences punishable under sections 341, 324, 325 read with section 34 IPC arising from an incident on 25 September 2013, when the petitioners allegedly restrained and assaulted the two respondents with an iron rod. The respondents (victims) filed affidavits indicating no subsisting grievance against the petitioners and, as per the affidavits, had consented to the criminal proceedings continuing or to a non-continuance of a civil dispute; in any case, the matter was settled. The learned Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about invoking 482 to quash, but the court relied on settled legal principles. It cites Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) to affirm that 482 powers extend to quashing in appropriate cases based on settlements between private parties, particularly where the dispute has a civil flavour, and not in crimes against society. Narinder Singh and Rajesh Kamath J. are cited for guidelines. After evaluating the gravity of the offences, the lack of likelihood of conviction, and the settlement between the parties, the court held that quashing was proper and allowed the petition, quashing Annexure-A FIR and all further proceedings.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another	(2012) 10 SCC 303	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that High Courts can exercise 482 CrPC powers to quash proceedings based on settlements between private parties, especially where the case has a civil flavour, with limits that it does not apply to crimes against society.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	(2014) 6 SCC 466	Positive	Cited for guidelines on exercise of 482 CrPC powers in settlement scenarios between private parties.
Rajesh Kamath J. and Others v. Mohana Kurup and Others	AIR 2016 SC 2452	Positive	Cited as part of the guiding principles/guidelines on quashing in settled disputes between parties.

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** **MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/2ND KARTHIKA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 5823 of 2016 () -------------------------CC 452/2014 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MALAPPURAM** **-------** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:** **---------------------** **1. ABDU, S/O.HAMZA HAJI, MANGADAN HOUS, AMBALAVATTOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **2. BASHEER, S/O.ALAVI HAJI, POOVANCHERY HOUSE, VALAKKULAQM, PUTHUPARAMBU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **3. ABDUL RAZAK, S/O.MUHAMMED, PADSSERY HOUSE, KALARI, EDARIKKODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **4. SUBAIR THANGAL** **S/O.POOKOYA THANGAL, VALIYAKATHODI HOUSE, CHERUSSOLA, KALARI PO, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.R.RANJITH (MANJERI)** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE, DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & INJURED:** **---------------------------------------------------** **1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682031 - FOR THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTAKKAL POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **2. ANUS YUSAF YASIN S/O.ABDUL RASHEED, AGED 23 YEARS, MANGADAN HOUSE, EDARIKKODE , TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 676 501.** ## **Crl.MC.No. 5823 of 2016 ()** ## **3. AMEER SHAN, S/O.KUNHUMUHAMMED,** **AGED 21 YEARS, ILLIKKAL HOUSE, EDARIKKODE, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 676 501.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI R2 & R3 BY ADV. SMT.M.LISHA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **bp** ## **Crl.MC.No. 5823 of 2016 ()** ## **---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** ## **-----------------------** |**ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.772/2013 OF**| |---| |**THE KOTTAKKAL POLICE STATION DATED 25.9.2013**| |**ANNEXURE B: TRUE COY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF EVIDENCE AND**| |**CHARGE IN F.I.R IN CRIME NO.772/13 OF THE**| |**KOTTAKKAL POLICE STATION**| |**ANNEXURE C: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 2ND**| |**RESPONDENT DATED 18.6.16**| |**ANNEXURE D: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 3RD**| |**RESPONDENT DATD 18.6.16**| |**RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS**<br>**:**<br>**NIL.**| |**//TRUE COPY//**| |**P.A. TO JUDGE**| ## **bp** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V., J.** ------------------------------------------ ## **Crl.M.C. No. 5823 of 2016** -----------------------------------------Dated this the 24[th] day of October, 2016 ## **O R D E R ~~~~~~~~** - 1.This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Code') has been preferred by the petitioners herein for quashing the proceedings pending against them as C.C.No.452 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Malappuram. In the said case, they stand indicted for offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The respondents 2 and 3 are the victims. - 2.The prosecution allegation is that on 25.9.2013 at 1.40 p.m., the petitioners in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained the respondents 2 and 3 and assaulted them with an iron rod causing injuries. - 3.The 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondent have entered appearance through their counsel and has filed Annexures-C and D **Crl.M.C. No. 5823 of 2016** **2** affidavits wherein they have stated that they have no subsisting grievance against the petitioners and they do wish that the criminal proceedings against them should continue. - 4.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. - 5.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. - 6.In **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another** [2012 - (10)SCC 303], the Apex Court has crystalised the position **Crl.M.C. No. 5823 of 2016** **3** in respect of the powers vested in the High Court under S.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to quash criminal proceedings. It was held that the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is not limited to quashing proceedings within the ambit and scope of Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The three - Judge Bench in the above case, clearly expounded, that quashing of criminal proceedings under S.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 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 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 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, **Crl.M.C. No. 5823 of 2016** **4** 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 **Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab** [2014 (6) SCC 466] and recently in **Rajesh Kamath J. and Others v. Mohana Kurup and Others** [AIR 2016 SC 2452]. - 7.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 party respondents have 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. **Crl.M.C. No. 5823 of 2016** **5** 8.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. In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A, FIR and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.C. No. 452 of 2014 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram are quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE** ps/24/10/16