Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed

Abdul Azeez and others v. State of Kerala and others

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC. No.2475 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Raja Vijayaraghavan.V, J
Judgment Date
2016-05-31
Court Decision / Holding
The instant petition is allowed and all further proceedings against the petitioners in CC No.29/2015, on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Kasaragod, are quashed.
Final Disposition
Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Abdul Azeez
  • Ashique K.M
  • K.U Ibrahim
  • Hassinar
  • C.H Abdulla
  • Abdulla K.H

Respondents

  • State of Kerala through SHO Vidyanagar, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
  • Ibrahim C.H
  • Aalikunhi K.M
  • Rabiya K.M
  • C.H Pokker

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • C.B. Suma Devi

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri Kodoth Sreedharan
  • • Public Prosecutor Sri Rajesh Vijayan

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC (Crl.MC. No.2475 of 2016) filed in the Kerala High Court seeking to quash CC No.29/2015 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kasaragod, involving offences under Sections 143, 147, 323, 325, 354 read with 34 IPC. The petitioners, six accused persons, contend that the dispute with the second respondent has been amicably resolved and that continuing the criminal proceedings would cause oppression and be an abuse of process of law, contrary to ends of justice. The respondents (state and others) as well as the private respondents have filed affidavits (Annexures II–V) stating they do not wish to pursue the case, and the Public Prosecutor indicates no serious objection given the absence of criminal antecedents and the voluntary nature of settlement. The High Court recalls the evolving jurisprudence (Gian Singh; Narinder Singh; Yogendra Yadav) expanding the use of inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings in cases involving private disputes resolved amicably. It emphasizes that while certain heinous offences cannot be quashed, many private disputes may end through settlement without undermining justice. After considering the submissions, the court concludes that continuing the proceedings would be unfair and an abuse of process, and accordingly allows the petition, quashing all further proceedings in CC 29/2015.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 143 IPCSection 147 IPCSection 323 IPCSection 325 IPCSection 354 read with Section 34 IPCSection 482 CrPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Ends of justice
  • Abuse of process of the court
  • Inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC with wide plenitude
  • Private or personal nature of disputes can justify quashing of criminal proceedings on compromise (with exceptions for heinous offences)
  • No statutory limitation on inherent power; discretion guided by justice and preventing abuse

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that the dispute was neighbourly and personal in nature. With the parties having amicably settled, affidavits (Annexures II–V) confirm they do not want to continue the proceedings. The absence of criminal antecedents and the State’s non-objection support quashing under the inherent powers of this Court to secure ends of justice and prevent abuse of process. Citing Gian Singh, Narinder Singh and Yogendra Yadav, the petition argues that where the injury is private and the settlement is genuine, continuing the case would be oppressive and unnecessary; quashing would serve the interests of peace and community harmony.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents acknowledge a settlement facilitated by relatives/mediators and submitted affidavits indicating they do not wish the case to proceed. The Public Prosecutor has not raised serious objections given the private nature of the dispute and the consensual resolution, and the overall aim is to preserve social harmony while avoiding undue harassment through protracted proceedings.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab(2012) 10 SCC 303PositiveRecognizes that High Courts can quash criminal proceedings on amicable settlements in appropriate cases under inherent powers, especially where the offence is primarily private.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab(2014) 6 SCC 466PositiveReiterates the broad scope of the inherent power under CrPC 482 to secure ends of justice in private-dispute settlements.
Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another(2014) 9 SCC 653PositiveAffirms the principle that amicable settlements can influence the quashing of criminal proceedings in suitable private disputes.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Abdul Azeez and others v. State of Kerala and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

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 TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2016/10TH JYAISHTA, 1938 Crl.MC. No.2475 of 2016 () --------------------------- IN CC NO.29/2015 ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, KASARAGOD IN CRIME NO. 605/2014 OF VIDYA NAGAR POLICE STATION, KASARGOD PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED: ----------------------------- 1. ABDUL AZEEZ, AGED 32 YEARS,S/O. MOHAMMED YUSAF HAJEE, R/AT KOLACHIYADKAM HOUSE, P.O EDANEER, PADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. ASHIQUE K.M, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. MOHAMMED YUSAF HAJEE, R/AT KOLACHIYADKAM HOUSE, P.O EDANEER, PADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3. K.U IBRAHIM, AGED 43 YEARS,S/O. YUSAF HAJEE, R/AT KOLACHIYADKAM HOUSE, P.O EDANEER, PADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 4. HASSINAR, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED YUSAF HAJEE, R/AT KOLACHIYADKAM HOUSE, P.O EDANEER, PADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 5. C.H ABDULLA, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED, R/AT KOLACHIYADKAM HOUSE, P.O EDANEER, PADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 6. ABDULLA K.H, - AGED 56 YEARS,S/O. ASSAINAR, R/AT KOLACHIYADKAM HOUSE, P.O EDANEER, PADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.C.B.SUMA DEVI ...2/- Crl.MC. No.2475 of 2016 () :2: ## RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------- ## 1. STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER VIDYANAGAR, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. IBRAHIM C.H, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. MOHAMMED, R/AT KOLACHIYADKAM HOUSE, P.O EDANEER, PADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3. AALIKUNHI K.M, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O. SEETHI, R/AT KOLACHIYADKAM HOUSE, P.O EDANEER, PADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 4. RABIYA K.M, AGED 30 YEARS, W/O. ABDULKHADER, R/AT KOLACHIYADKAM HOUSE, P.O EDANEER, PADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 5. C.H POKKER, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED, R/AT KOLACHIYADKAM HOUSE, P.O EDANEER, PADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. R2-R5 BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## Crl.MC. No 2475 of 2016 () ## APPENDIX ## PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:- A1:-TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO 605/2014 DT 05/12/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KASARAGOD. AII:-TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. AIII:-TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. AIV:-TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. AV:-TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:-NIL KRJ //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J** = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C No.2475 of 2016 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated 31[st] May, 2016 ## **ORDER** The petitioners herein are accused 1 to 6 in C.C No.29 of 2015 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Kasaragod involving offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 325, 354 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The aforesaid crime was registered at the instance of the second respondent herein. After investigation, final report was laid before the Court. In this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners seek to invoke extra-ordinary powers of this Court to quash pending criminal proceedings on the ground that the matter has been amicably resolved between the parties. 3. Prosecution allegation is that on 12.11.2014 at 5PM, on account of previous enmity towards the second respondent herein, the accused persons formed themselves into unlawful assembly Crl.MC.2475/16 **-:2:-** and assaulted the _de facto_ complainant and CWs.2 to 4 . 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that during pendency of the criminal proceedings, the matter has been amicably resolved between the parties. It is further submitted that the petitioners as well as respondents 2 to 5 are neighbours and they intend to live peacefully hereinafter in an harmonious manner. 5. Respondents 2 to 5 have entered appearance through counsel and it is submitted that the matter has been amicably resolved at the instance of relatives and other mediators. Annexures- II to V affidavits have already been filed by respondents 2 to 5 asserting that they do not intend or wish that the criminal proceedings against the petitioners should be continued any further. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that the petitioners are not persons with criminal antecedents and the parties are neighbours. It is also submitted that in view of the fact that the matter has been amicably resolved between the parties, the Crl.MC.2475/16 **-:3:-** State has no serious objection in acting on Annexures-II to V filed by respondents 2 to 5. 7. It is thus borne out from the submissions made at the Bar that the parties have amicably settled their disputes with their free will and without any kind of pressure, influence or coercion. The compromise, it is felt, is voluntarily and genuine and can be acted upon. 8. The law with regard to the settlement of criminal disputes on the strength of an amicable resolution of the disputes between . the parties is no more _res integra_ ## 9. In **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012 (10) SCC 303),** Apex 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. This view was reiterated in **Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014 (6) SCC 466)** and **Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another (2014 (9) SCC 653)** . 10. It was held that the inherent power is of wide plenitude Crl.MC.2475/16 **-:4:-** with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. It was held that certain categories of cases involving heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute as those offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. But those cases where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and those in which the parties have resolved their entire dispute could fittingly be quashed by this court taking into account the compromise between the offender and victim. In such cases the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused and the _de facto_ complainant to great oppression and prejudice. 11. After having anxiously considered the submissions it is felt that it would be unfair and contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding. It would only tantamount to Crl.MC.2475/16 **-:5:-** abuse of process of law to subject the parties to the ordeal of a protracted criminal proceeding despite the settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer. Settlement will augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony. In the result, the instant petition is allowed and all further proceedings against the petitioners herein in C.C No.29 of 2015 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Kasaragod shall stand quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V JUDGE** krj.31/5/16