Abdul Basith and others v. State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
Judgment Date: 2016-12-05
Court Decision / Holding: Quash
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; quashing of CP No. 64/2015 and final report No. 409/15 along with proceedings; extraordinary power under Section 482 CrPC invoked to secure ends of justice and prevent abuse of process.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Abdul Basith
Jafar
Ashraf

Respondents

State of Kerala, represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Ajith Kumar
Sumesh
Adarsh
Dineshan

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• A. Ranjith Narayanan
• A. Simi

Counsels for Respondents

• M. R. Danil (Public Prosecutor)
• S. K. Saju

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 CrPC filed before the Kerala High Court by accused Nos. 1–3 (A1–A3) challenging the invocation of criminal proceedings arising from CP No. 64/2015 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Thamarassery, in crime No. 388/2015 of Mukkom Police Station. The petition seeks quashing of the pending proceedings in light of an amicable settlement between the parties and contends that the dispute is personal and does not affect public peace. The respondents—the State, de facto complainant and injured persons—oppose quashing on the basis that continuation of proceedings could be necessary to protect public interest, but acknowledge settlement as a factor. The Public Prosecutor initially reserved his position, while acknowledging no other cases against the petitioners. The court endorses the legal principle from Supreme Court decisions Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab that, in appropriate circumstances, a High Court may quash criminal proceedings to secure ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process where settlement exists. The court finds the offences not grave, the settlement beneficial to peace, and the prospects of conviction unlikely, and accordingly quashes the final report and proceedings CP64/2015. The order emphasizes the use of 482 CrPC to prevent abuse and promote justice.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal ProcedureSections 323, 324, 427, 294(b), 308 read with Section 34 of the IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ends of justice
Abuse of the process of law
Quashing in appropriate cases based on amicable settlements (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012; Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2014)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved and is purely personal, with no public interest involved. They urged the High Court to exercise its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings to secure ends of justice and to promote peace between the parties, citing the principles laid down in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab which permit quashing where settlement exists and there is no abuse of process.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents acknowledged the amicable settlement but argued that quashing the proceedings premised on settlement should be exercised cautiously, as the matter involves offences that may affect public order and requires consideration of justice and possible abuse of process. The Public Prosecutor initially reserved his position, noting that quashing is not automatic and depends on there being no contrary public interest.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	(2012) 10 SCC 303	Positive	Apex Court held that High Courts may quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases if settlement between victim and wrongdoer serves ends of justice and does not amount to abuse of process.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	(2014) 6 SCC 466	Positive	Observations that when parties settle, quashing should be guided by ends of justice and prevention of abuse of process; supports exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC in favor of quashing.

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 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938** ## **Crl.MC.No. 815 of 2016 ()** **-------------------------CP.NO. 64/2015 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, THAMARASSERY CRIME NO. 388/2015 OF MUKKOM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT** ## **--------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED A1-A3:** **------------------------------------------------** **1. ABDUL BASITH, AGED 47 YEARS,S/O. IBRAHIM, ADUKKATHIL, KARASSERY, MUKKOM, KOZHIKODE.** **2. JAFAR, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. IBRAHIM, ADUKKATHIL, KARASSERY, MUKKOM, KOZHIKODE.** **3. ASHRAF, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. IBRAHIM, ADUKKATHIL, KARASSERY, MUKKOM, KOZHIKODE.** **BY ADVS.SRI.A.RANJITH NARAYANAN SMT.A.SIMI** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE,DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND INJURED:** **-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031, REPRESENTING THE SHO, MUKKOM POLICE, KOZHIKODE-673 001** **2. AJITH KUMAR, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY, KURUNGOTTU HOUSE, KALATHINGAL PARAMBU,** **PUTHIYARAAMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK (DEFACTO COMPLAINANT-CW1), PIN-673 001** **3. SUMESH, AGED 32 YEARS,S/O. SURENDRAN, VARATHYAKKIL PARAMBIL, KUNNAMANGALAM AMSOM DESOM,** **KOZHIKODE TALUK (INJURED -CW2), PIN-673 001** **2/-** **-2-** **CRL.MC.NO.815/2016** **4. ADARSH, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O. SURESH, POYILINGAL HOUSE, KUNNAMANGALAM P.O,** **KOZHIKODE TALUK (INJURED-CW4), PIN-673 001** **5. DINESHAN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. RAJAN, PUULLIYATH KAVIL HOUSE, P.O KARAPPARAMBU,** **KOZHIKODE (INJURED-CW3), PIN-673 001** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.R.DHANIL R2 TO R5 BY ADV. SRI.S.K.SAJU** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** ## **Crl.MC.No. 815 of 2016 () -------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:** ## **---------------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 11-08-2015 IN CRIME NO.388/2015 OF MUKKOM POLICE STATION** **ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT NO.409/15 DATED 28-12-2015 ALONG WITH THE LIST OF WITNESSES IN CRIME NO. 388/2015 OF MUKKOM POLICE STATION** **ANNEXURE A3 DULY ATTESTED AFFIDAVIT DATED 04-02-2016 SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT** **ANNEXURE A4 DULY ATTESTED AFFIDAVIT DATED 04-02-2016 SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT** **ANNEXURE A5 NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT DATED 01-02-2016 SWORN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT** **ANNEXURE A6 DULY ATTESTED AFFIDAVIT DATED 04-02-2016 SWORN BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL** **----------------------------------------------** **/TRUE COPY/** ## **P.A.TO JUDGE** **sts** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.815 of 2016** ## **----------------------------------------Dated this the 5[th] day of December, 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 Nos. 1 to 3 in C.P.No.64 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Thamarassery. In the aforesaid case, they stand indicted under Sections 323, 324, 427,294(b), 308 read with Section 34 of the IPC. - 3.The crux of the prosecution allegation is that, on 8.8.2015 at about 6.30 p.m., the petitioners herein trespassed into the workshop run by the 2[nd] respondent and thereafter **Crl.M.C.815/2016** **2** assaulted the respondents 2 to 5 causing injuries. - 4.Heard the submissions advanced. 5.The learned counsel appearing for the party respondents submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. Attention of this Court is invited to the affidavits filed by them 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 **Crl.M.C.815/2016** **3** against the petitioners. 7.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. 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.”_ 8.The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court **Crl.M.C.815/2016** **4** in **Narinder singh v. State of Punjab.** [(2014) 6 SCC 466], the pertinent observations which are as under: _XXXXXXXXXXXX_ _29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor 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._ _xxxxxxx_ 9.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 **Crl.M.C.815/2016** **5** 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. - 10.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-A2 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.P.No.64 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Thamarassery are quashed. **Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE** ps/1/12/2016