High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2014-07-22Petition dismissed; case to be disposed on meri...

Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala and Aliyar

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No.3701 of 2014

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Ramakrishnan
Judgment Date: 2014-07-22
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is dismissed. However, considering that the case has already reached final hearing, the magistrate is directed to expedite disposal of the case, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate before 31.07.2014, and the office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court.
Final Disposition: Petition dismissed; case to be disposed on merit with directive to expedite trial

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Abdul Rahman, S/O Kochahammed

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
Aliyar, S/O Beeran

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. SMT. Rekha C. Nair

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor SMT P. Maya
• Adv. Sri P. Saju

Case Synopsis & Summary

Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala and Aliyar concerns a criminal miscellaneous case challenging proceedings in Crime No 386/1991 of the Perumbavoor Police Station, refiled as CC 1470/12 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Perumbavoor. The accused seeks to quash the charge sheet Annexure A1 and all further proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, arguing that a settlement has been reached between the parties and there is no realistic prospect of conviction; further, some offences are noncompoundable and the remedy lies outside the quashing petition. The background is intricate: ten accused were originally named; several were convicted and then acquitted on appeal; absconding co-accused reappeared and were tried, with some later acquitted; the present petitioner surrendered and the case was refiled. The matter has been settled, and the 2nd respondent has not objected, but the learned magistrate has sent a report that CC 1470/12 is in the final stage, with evidence already concluded and the case posted for final hearing. The Public Prosecutor opposes quashing on the ground that evidence has begun and quashing would impede the trial. The court relies on Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Others to hold that at such a late stage, Section 482 relief is not warranted despite settlement, and accordingly dismisses the petition while directing expedited disposal of the case by the trial court.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal ProcedureSection 313 of Cr.P.C.Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petition seeks to quash Annexure A1 charge sheet and all further proceedings in Crime No. 386/1991 on the basis of a settlement between the parties. The petitioner asserts that the long pendency of the case and the settlement render conviction unlikely, providing justification to exercise the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC. It is argued that some offences are non‑compoundable, yet settlement should not bar quashing where justice so requires, and that continued prosecution would be an abuse of process in light of the settlement. The applicant contends the court should invoke its extraordinary power to secure ends of justice and prevent needless harassment. Respondents:

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents concede the settlement but oppose quashing because the trial has progressed to final hearing and evidence has already been recorded. It is argued that quashing at this late stage would undermine the trial and could undermine the evidence on record. The State contends that settlement cannot override the ongoing trial and that the proper course is to decide the case on merits; if there is any independent evidence, it remains to be considered. The Public Prosecutor emphasizes the requirement to protect the integrity of the process and to avoid undermining the judicial proceedings.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Narinder Singh & Others v. State of Punjab and Another	2014 (4) SCALE 195	Positive	Cited to support the view that, at a late stage with evidence already recorded, invoking Section 482 CrPC to quash is not appropriate even where 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 Rahman v. State of Kerala and Aliyar 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 K.RAMAKRISHNAN** **TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2014/31ST ASHADHA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3701 of 2014** **----------------------------------** **CC 1470/2012 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PERUMBAVOOR CRIME NO. 386/1991 OF PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM** **--------------** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **--------------------------------** **ABDUL RAHMAN, S/O.KOCHAHAMMED, KONNAMKUDY HOUSE, MUDICAL P.O.** **BY ADV. SMT.REKHA C.NAIR** ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:** **-------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESNETED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.** ## **2. ALIYAR,** **S/O. BEERAN, KUNJINIMURI VEEDU, PALLIPPURAM, MANAMBILLY VILLAGE, PIN-683105.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.P.MAYA R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.SAJU** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-07-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **PJ** **Crl.MC.No. 3701 of 2014** **---------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES** **-------------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE A1- TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO. 386/91 OF PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE A2- TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES** **---------------------------------------------** **NIL.** **/ TRUE COPY /** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **PJ** K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Crl. M.C. No.3701 of 2014 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 22[nd ] day of July, 2014 ## O R D E R This criminal miscellaneous case is filed by the accused in C.C.4070/12 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Perumbavoor, to quash the proceedings on the basis of settlement under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called 'the Code'). 2. It is alleged in the petition that, the petitioner has been arrayed as 7[th] accused in Crime No.386/91 of Perumbavoor police station and after investigation final report was filed and some of the accused persons faced trial and they were earlier convicted and later acquitted by the appellate court. Thereafter, two other persons who were absconding also appeared and after trial they were also acquitted by that court. Now the petitioner also surrendered and the case was re-filed as C.C.1470/12 and now the matter has been settled between the parties. Cr.M.C.3701/ 2014 2 On account of settlement, there is no possibility of conviction. Since some of the offences are noncompoundable in nature, they cannot file compounding petition before the court below. So the petitioner has no other remedy, except to approach this court, seeking the following relief: “It is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the records and to quash Annexure-A1 charge sheet and all further proceedings in Crime No.386/91 pending before JFCM, Perumbavoor”. 3. 2[nd] respondent appeared through counsel and submitted that, the matter has been settled and he has no objection in quashing the proceedings. The counsel for the petitioner also submitted that, in the lower court evidence has been completed and it is posted for hearing and in the meantime, parties have settled the case. So he prays for allowing the application. 4. Considering the fact that, the crime is of the year 1991, this court has called for a report from the court below regarding the present stage and the learned Cr.M.C.3701/ 2014 3 ## magistrate has sent a report, which reads as follows: “C.C.1470/12 is a refiled case. Originally the case was taken on file as C.C.20/1992. There were 10 accused persons in the original case. After trial A1 to A6 and A8 were convicted by this court. Thereafter A9 and A10, who absconded formerly appeared and their case was refiled as CC 819/02. After trial they were acquitted by this court. Case against this accused (original A7) was converted to L.P.. He appeared before the court on 27.11.2012. This accused absconded when his appearance he was questioned u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. and case was posted for defence evidence. Now the case stands posted for 16.07.2014 for final hearing”. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, it is not a fit case to invoke the power under 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at this stage, as the evidence has already been started. 6. It is an admitted fact that, on the basis of the statement given by the defacto-complainant/ 2[nd] respondent Crime No.386/1991 of Perumbavoor, police station was registered against ten persons including the petitioner, alleging offences under Section 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation, final report was filed and it was Cr.M.C.3701/ 2014 4 originally taken on file as C.C.20/1992 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Perumbavoor. Accused Nos. 7, 9 and 10 absconded during trial and the case against accused Nos. 1, 6 and 8 was tried by that court and it was ended in conviction and according to the petitioner, they were acquitted by the appellate court. Thereafter, the case against the present petitioner and accused Nos.9 and 10 was split up and when accused Nos.9 and 10 appeared, it was re-filed as C.C.819/2002 and after trial they were acquitted by that court. The case against the present petitioner was transferred to the register of long pending cases as he absconded at the time when the case was posted for questioning under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thereafter, he surrendered before the court below and it was re-filed as C.C.1470/2012 and his 313 examination was completed and it was posted for defence evidence and since no defence evidence has been adduced and it is now posted to 16.07.2014 for final hearing and the counsel for the petitioner submitted that, now it is Cr.M.C.3701/ 2014 5 posted to 23.07.2014 for hearing. 7. Considering the circumstances and also considering the fact that evidence has already been over and it is now posted for final hearing and after hearing the case will have to be disposed of on merit, I do not think that, it is a fit case to invoke the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, though the matter was settled between the parties and if there is other evidence against the accused, that cannot be overcome by way of settlement and quashing the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and observed in the decision reported in **Narinder Singh & Others v. State of Punjab and Another (2014 (4) SCALE 195)** . Since the case has already been reached the final stage of hearing, this court feels that, it will have its natural end by disposing the case on merit. So this court feels that, it is not a fit case to invoke the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at this stage and the case cannot be Cr.M.C.3701/ 2014 6 quashed on the basis of settlement at this stage and the petition is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the petition is dismissed. However considering the fact that, the case has already reached final hearing, the learned magistrate is directed to expedite disposal of the case, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate before 31.07.2014. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court. immediately. Sd/- ## **K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE** // True Copy// P.A. to Judge ss