High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-11-03Petition allowed; proceedings quashed; CC No.11...

Abdul Rafeeque @ Rafeeque S/O Mohammed and others v. The State of Kerala and Rafeeque Babu S/O Ali

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C. No. 6308 of 2016

Neutral Citation:,

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan.V., J.
Judgment Date: 2016-11-03
Court Decision / Holding: Petition allowed; Annexure-A final report and all proceedings in CC No. 1121 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Perinthalmanna are quashed.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; proceedings quashed; CC No.1121/2015 quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Abdul Rafeeque @ Rafeeque S/o Mohammed
Afsal @ Monayi S/o Hamza
Rashid S/o Abutti
Muhammed Nizar @ Desappan S/o Ubaid
Muhammed Nameem @ Ice S/o Safiya
Ayoob S/o Saidalavi

Respondents

The State of Kerala rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Enakulam, Kochi
Rafeeque Babu S/O Ali

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. R. Ranjith (Manjeri)

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. M. Lisha (Advocate for 2nd Respondent)
• Sri. T. R. Renjith, Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

The Kerala High Court hears a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under section 482 CrPC filed by six accused challenging CC 1121/2015, arising from Crime No. 406/2014 of the Perinthalmanna Police Station. The petitioners, accused Nos. 1–6, sought to quash the proceedings on the ground that the dispute with the second respondent has been amicably settled and that continuing the criminal proceedings would not serve public peace or justice; it would amount to abuse of process. The second respondent supported settlement and filed an affidavit explaining the settlement’s personal nature. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about quashing merely on the basis of settlement, suggesting that the court should exercise caution. The court references the Supreme Court decisions in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, noting that in appropriate cases High Courts can terminate criminal proceedings if settlement between victim and offender promotes ends of justice and avoids abuse of process. The judge found the offence not grave and not likely to have a broad societal impact, and that continuing prosecution would be a waste of time with bleak prospects of conviction. Consequently, the court invoked its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC and allowed the petition, quashing the final report and all further proceedings in CC 1121/2015. Annexure-A final report and related proceedings are quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal ProcedureSections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 r/w 149 of the IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ends of justice
Abuse of process of law
Settlement and compromise between victim and wrongdoer can justify quashing a criminal proceeding

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants contend that the dispute with the second respondent has been amicably settled and that the case relates to a personal quarrel without broader public interest. They submit that quashing the proceedings would serve ends of justice and would not undermine public peace, supported by the affidavit from the second respondent asserting settlement. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, they argue that the High Court may exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to terminate criminal proceedings when settlement exists and continuing prosecution would amount to abuse of process or would be unjust. They emphasize the long pendency since 2014 and the uncertain prospects of conviction, asserting quashing will promote peace and avoid unnecessary litigation. They request quashing of Annexure-A final report and all proceedings in CC No.1121/2015.

Contentions of Respondents

The State, through the Public Prosecutor, concedes that settlement is a relevant factor but cautions against quashing solely on the basis of compromise if it would offend public interest or undermine justice. The 2nd respondent’s affidavit is cited in support of settlement, which is considered personal in nature. The prosecution, while not opposing settlement outright, urges careful application of the principles in Gian Singh and Narinder Singh to ensure ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process. The delay and nature of the offences are weighed against public order considerations. Overall, the arguments acknowledge that settlement can influence the course of proceedings, but the court must balance it with the need to preserve public faith in criminal justice and avoid capricious quashing when facts suggest substantial evidentiary prospects or impact on society.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 (10) SCC 303	Positive	Supporting authority that High Courts can quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases based on amicable settlements if ends of justice and avoidance of abuse of process are served.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	2014 (6) SCC 466	Positive	Reiterates guiding factors ends of justice and abuse of process to determine quashing when settlement exists.

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 Rafeeque @ Rafeeque S/O Mohammed and others v. The State of Kerala and Rafeeque Babu S/O Ali 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 THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/12TH KARTHIKA, 1938 Crl.MC.No. 6308 of 2016 () --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 1121/2015 of J.M.F.C.II,PERINTHALMANNA DATED CRIME NO. 406/2014 OF PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM PETITIONER(S)//ACCUSED: ---------------------- 1. ABDUL RAFEEQUE @ RAFEEQUE S/O MOHAMMED, AGED 26 YEARS, CHIRAKKAL HOUSE, KUNNAPPALLY, PATHAKKARA, MALAPPURAM DIST. 2. AFSAL @ MONAYI S/O HAMZA. AGED 25 YEARS, POOKKATTUTHODI, KUNNAPPALLY, PATHAKKARA, MALAPPURAM DIST. 3. RASHID S/O ABUTTY, AGED 25 YEARS, PALLIYALTHODI, KUNNAPPALLY, PATHAKKARA, MALAPPURAM DIST. 4. MUHAMMED NIZAR @ DESAPPAN S/O UBAID, AGED 26 YEARS , KANJIRAKUNDIL HOUSE, KUNNAPPALLY, PATHAKKARA, MALAPPURAM DIST. 26 5. MUHAMMED NAMEEM @ ICE S/O SAFIYA, AGED 22 YEARS, CHELAKKATTILTHODI HOUSE, KUNNAPPALLY, PATHAKKARA, MALAPPURAM DIST. 6. AYOOB S/O SAIDALAVI, AGED 22 YEARS, POOKKATTUTHODI,KUNNAPPALLY, PATHAKKARA, MALAPPURAM DIST. CONTD... :2: Crl.MC.No. 6308 of 2016 () --------------------------- BY ADV. SRI.R.RANJITH (MANJERI) RESPONDENT(S)//STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ENAKULAM, KOCHI- 682031 FOR THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DIST. 2. RAFEEQUE BABU S/O ALI,AGED 32 YEARS, PALASSERY HOUSE, PATHAYIKKARA AMSOM, KUNNAPPALLY DESOM, PERINTHALMANNATALUK, MALAPPURAM DIST PIN- 679 340 R2 BY ADV. SMT.M.LISHA R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. T.R.RENJITH THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CONTD... :3: Crl.MC.No. 6308 of 2016 () --------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- ANNEXUE A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT/CHARGE IN CRIME NO.406/2014 OF THE PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27-8-2016 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL ----------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE SKS ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 6308 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## Dated 3[rd] November, 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **O R D E R** - 1.This petition is filed under S.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 6 in C.C. No.1121 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Perinthalmanna. They stand indicted for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 r/w 149 of the IPC. - 3.The crux of the prosecution allegation is that on 02.03.2014 at 11.30 p.m, the petitioners formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common intention, assaulted the 2[nd] respondent. - 4.Heard the submissions advanced. - 5.The learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent Crl.M.C. No. 6308 of 2016 2 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 Court has laid down that in appropriate cases, the Crl.M.C. No. 6308 of 2016 3 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: ## _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:_ Crl.M.C. No. 6308 of 2016 4 _(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_ _xxxxxxx_ 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. 6308 of 2016 5 In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.C.No. 1121 of 2015 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Perinthalmanna are quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE** SKS //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE