High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-09-27Quashed

Abdul Latheef M. and Others v. State of Kerala and Station House Officer, Hosdurg Police Station

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C. No. 6118 of 2016

Neutral Citation:/null

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: The Hon. Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date: 2016-09-27
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is allowed; the proceedings in CC 744/2015 before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Hosdurg, are quashed; Annexure-A3 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto are also quashed.
Final Disposition: Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Abdul Latheef M.
Muhammed Shah
Hamza K.E.
M. Shihabudheen
P. Shamsheer
Muhammed Thayal
Muhammed Afzal
Navas P.
Shibili P.H.
M. Aslam
Siraj

Respondents

Station House Officer, Hosdurg Police Station, Kasaragod District
State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. C.K. Sreejith

Counsels for Respondents

• Smti. Mary Ranzom Louiz (advocate)
• Sri. Amjad Ali (Public Prosecutor)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case under Section 482 CrPC challenging CC 744/2015 before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Hosdurg, Kasaragod. The petition, filed by 11 accused persons (the petitioners), arises from offences including criminal trespass and assault on the 4th respondent’s party, allegedly forming an unlawful assembly and causing injuries. The respondents (State and police) oppose quashing, though they acknowledge that affidavits filed by the 3rd and 4th respondents assert the parties have mediated and resolved their disputes in order to restore peace, with a desire to end further proceedings. The petition relies on the settled legal position that High Courts may exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings in cases that have a private or civil flavour and where the parties have resolved their disputes, drawing support from the Supreme Court in Gian Singh, with Narinder Singh and Rajesh Kamath cited as guidelines. The court noted that the offences are not grave and that continuance would be oppressive given the settlement. Accordingly, the court held that quashing the proceedings is justified and allowed the petition, resulting in quashing of all further proceedings against the petitioners.”

Provisions of Law Cited

CrPC Section 482IPC Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 447, 427 read with Section 149

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 – High Court's extrajudicial quashing power under Sec. 482 can apply where there is private settlement; not applicable to crimes against society; private settlements and civil flavour emphasised.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 – guidelines on exercising 482 in settled matters.
Rajesh Kamath J. v. Mohana Kurup and Others (AIR 2016 SC 2452) – further Apex Court guidelines on use of 482 in private settlements.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that the underlying dispute was resolved through mediation and that continuing criminal proceedings would be oppressive and futile. Relying on Gian Singh, they argued that the High Court may exercise its intrinsic power under Sec. 482 CrPC to quash where there is a private settlement and the case has a predominantly private/civil flavour, especially when the offence is not grave or systemic and where conviction is unlikely. They urged the court to give effect to the settlement to avoid harassment and prejudice to the petitioners.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents opposed quashing solely on the basis of settlement, with the Public Prosecutor reserving his position that invoking Sec. 482 is not warranted in such contexts. The 3rd and 4th respondents filed affidavits stating the dispute was between rival groups and that settlement would promote peace; however, the public interest and the possibility of sufficient public harm in certain cases were acknowledged. Nevertheless, the primary point of contention remained whether the private settlement could justify quashing.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another	2012 (10) SCC 303	Positive	Cited as the foundational authority supporting the use of 482 CrPC to quash proceedings based on private settlements and civil flavour, not limited to 320 CrPC, with emphasis on private/settled disputes.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	2014 (6) SCC 466	Mentioned Only	Cited as guidelines for 482 usage, but not relied upon as a controlling basis for the decision.
Rajesh Kamath J. and Others v. Mohana Kurup and Others	AIR 2016 SC 2452	Mentioned Only	Cited as guidance/guidelines on 482 usage; not directly applied as the decisive basis.

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 Latheef M. and Others v. State of Kerala and Station House Officer, Hosdurg Police Station 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 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/5TH ASWINA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 6118 of 2016 ()** ## **---------------------------** ## **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 744/2015 of J.M.F.C.II,HOSDRUG DATED CRIME NO. 1463/2011 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION , KASARGOD** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 11::** **----------------------------------** ## **1. ABDUL LATHEEF M.** **AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.KUNJAHAMMED, RESIDING AT MALIKAYIL HOUSE, JILANI NAGAR, MUKKOOD, CHITHARI P.O., KASARAGOD DT.** **2. MUHAMMED SHAH** **AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.SOOPI, RESIDING AT SHAH MANZIL, JILANI NAGAR, MUKKOOD, PALLIKKARA VILLAGE.** ## **3. HAMZA K.E.** - **AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.ASSAINAR, K.E.HOUSE, JILANI NAGAR, MUKKOOD, PALLIKKARA VILLAGE.** **4. M.SHIHABUDHEEN** **AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.ABOOBACKER, MALIKAYIL HOUSE, JILANI NAGAR, MUKKOOD, PALLIKKARA VILLAGE.** **5. P.SHAMSEER AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL KHADER, MUKKOOD HOUSE, JILANI NAGAR, MUKKOOD, PALLIKKARA VILLAGE.** **CONTD...** **:2:** ## **Crl.MC.No. 6118 of 2016 () ---------------------------** ## **6. MUHAMMED THAYAL** - **AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.THAYAL KUNJAHAMMED HAJI, THAYAL HOUSE, MUKKOOD, CHITHARI VILLAGE.** **7. MUHAMMED AFZAL AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.ABDULLA K.K., MALIKALYIL HOUSE, JILANI NAGAR, MUKKOOD, PALLIKKARA VILLAGE.** ## **8. NAVAS P.** - **AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.P.MUHAMMED KUNJI, KIZHAKKEKARA HOUSE, JILANI NAGAR, MUKKOOD, PALLIKKARA VILLAGE.** ## **9. SHIBILI P.H.** - **AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL HAMEED, THAVAKKAL HOUSE, JILANI NAGAR, MUKKOOD, PALLIKKARA VILLAGE.** ## **10. M.ASLAM** **AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.HAMEED, THAVIKKAL HOUSE, JILANI NAGAR, MUKKOOD, PALLIKKARA VILLAGE.** ## **11. SIRAJ** **AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL KHADER, RYHANA MANZIL, KIZHAKKEKARA, MUKKOOD, PALLIKKARA VILLAGE.** **BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH** **RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT, STATE & DE-FACTO COMPLAINANTS:: ----------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATION HOUSE OFFICER HOSDURG POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DIST., REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682031.** **2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682031.** **CONTD....** **:3:** **Crl.MC.No. 6118 of 2016 ()** ## **---------------------------** ## **3. C.K.FAIZAL** **AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.IBRAHIM, RESIDING AT FAIZAL MANZIL, MUKKOOD, P.O.CHITHARI, KASARAGOD DIST.** ## **4. ABDUL KAREEM M.** **AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED SRANK, RESIDING AT MUKKOOD HOUSE, P.O.CHITHARI, KASARAGOD DIST.** **R1-2 BY ADV. SMT.MARY RANZOM LOUIZ R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.AMJAD ALI** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **CONTD...** ## **:4:** **Crl.MC.No. 6118 of 2016 () ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-----------------------** **ANNEXURE-A1: THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR REGISTERED BY THE HOSDURG POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE-A2: THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE MEMO OF EVIDENCE.** **ANNEXURE-A3: THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED BY THE HOSDURG POLICE STATION BEFORE THE JFCM NO.II, HOUSDURG.** **ANNEXURE-A4: THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **ANNEXURE-A5: THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL** **-----------------------** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **SKS** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 6118 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 27[th] September, 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **ORDER** - 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.744 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Hosdurg. In the said case, they stand indicted for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 447, 427 read with Section 149 of the IPC. - 2.The prosecution allegation is that the petitioners who are accused Nos. 1 to 11 had formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and criminally trespassed into the property of the 4[th] respondent and thereafter assaulted the party respondents causing injuries. - 3.The respondents 3 and 4 have entered appearance through their counsel and they have filed separate Crl.M.C. No. 6118 of 2016 2 affidavits before this Court, wherein it is stated that the incident had occurred between rival groups and in order to maintain peace and tranquility in the area the parties have mediated the matter and have decided to settle all the disputes between them and to live in harmony. They assert that they do not wish that the criminal proceedings against the petitioners 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. Crl.M.C. No. 6118 of 2016 3 6.In **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another** [2012 (10)SCC 303], the Apex Court has crystalised the position 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 Crl.M.C. No. 6118 of 2016 4 having an overwhelming and predominatingly civil flavour, particularly offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership, or such like transactions. Or even offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc. or family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal. 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 Crl.M.C. No. 6118 of 2016 5 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. It would also put the petitioners and the party respondents to great oppression and prejudice 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-A3, final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.C.No.744 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Hosdurg are quashed. ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE** SKS //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Crl.M.C. No. 6118 of 2016 6