Abdul Razzaak and Others v. The Sub Inspector of Police, Manjeshwar Police Station, Kasaragod and State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 25TH SRAVANA, 1941** ## **Crl.MC.No.5136 OF 2019(B)** **SC NO.61/2017 ON THE FILES OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, KASARAGOD** ## **CRIME NO.252/2013 OF MANJESWAR POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 7:** - **1 ABDUL RAZAAK, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. LATE ANDU BEARY, KAIRALI HOUSE, CHIPPAR, PAIVALIKE, MANJESHWAR TALUK, KASARAGOD-671 323.** - **2 ABDULLA KUNHI, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. LATE MOHAMMED, BAYAR PADAV, PAIVALIKE, MANJESHWAR TALUK, KASARAGOD-671 323.** - **3 NOUSHAD @ NOUSHEER, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. MOHAMMED, BILLARA HOUSE, BAYAR PADAV, NEAR BAYAR VILLAGE OFFICE,. PAIVALIKE, MANJESHWAR TALUK, KASARAGOD-671 323.** - **4 ISMAIL @ JAMAL, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. MOHAMMED KUNHI, BAYAR PADAV, PAIVALIKE, MANJESHWAR TALUK, KASARAGOD-671 323.** - **5 ASBEER, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. LATE MOHAMMED, MADEENA MANZIL, BAYAR PADAV, BAYAR, PAIVALIKE, MANJESHWAR TALUK, KASARAGOD-671 323.** - **6 ABOOBACKER SIDDIQUE, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. LATE AHAMMED M.C QUARTERS, BAYAR PADAV, PAIVALIKE, MANJESHWAR TALUK, KASARAGOD-671 323. BY ADV. SMT.ANN SUSAN GEORGE** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:** - **1 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANJESHWAR POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 323.** CRL.MC:5136/2019 2 - **2 IBRAHIM KHALEEL, S/O. MOHAMED, LALBAG HOUSE, CHIPPAR, CHIPPAR VILLAGE, MANJESHWAR TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 323.** - **3 ABOOBACKER SIDDIQUE @ SIDDIQUE MOULAVI AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. MOOSA, KURUUVERI HOUSE, AMERI, CHIPPAR VILLAGE, MANJESHWAR TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 323.** - **4 HAMEED K., S/O. MOOSA, KURUVERI HOUSE, AMEREI, CHIPPAR VILLAGE, MANJESHWAR TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 323.** - **5 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.** **R2-4 BY ADV. SRI.V.JAYAPRADEEP** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** CRL.MC:5136/2019 3 ## **ORDER** Invoking the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the Code”, for short), the petitioners have approached this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them by the 2[nd] respondent herein, which is now pending on the files of the Assistant Sessions Judge Kasaragod as S.C. No.61 of 2017. In the above proceeding, the petitioners face indictment for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 506(ii) and 308 read with Section 149 of the IPC. 2. The prosecution allegation is that 15.04.2013 at about 7.20 pm, the petitioners formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, wrongfully restrained the party respondents and thereafter, attacked them causing injuries. 3. Heard Smt.Ann Susan George, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.Jayapradeeep V., the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4, and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Sri.V.Jayapradeeep submitted that after much deliberations, the victims have resolved their disputes and differences with the petitioners and they have now decided that the continuance of criminal proceedings is an unwanted exercise. He refers to the affidavits filed by the victims before this Court and asserts that they have no objection in bringing the prosecution proceedings to a CRL.MC:5136/2019 4 premature termination. 5. Smt.Ann Susan George urged that in view of the compromise arrived at between the victims and the offenders, the possibility of conviction is bleak and the continuation of the criminal proceedings will only inure to put both the parties to oppression and prejudice. Both sides submit that the wrong is basically private in nature and no public interest is involved. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the investigating officer has reported that the petitioners are not involved in any other crimes. It is further submitted that the State has no serious objection in quashing the proceedings against them in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties. 7. I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the records. 8. The factors that are to be borne while exercising the powers conferred on this Court by Section 482 of the Code in the context of considering a prayer for quashing criminal proceedings on the basis of resolution of disputes between the offender and the victim have been laid down by the Apex Court in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr** .[1] ; **Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and Another[2]** ; **Narinder Singh and Others** 1 [(2012) 10 SCC 303] - 2 [(2013) 4 SCC 58] CRL.MC:5136/2019 5 **v. State of Punjab and Another[3]** ; **Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another[4]** and **State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and others[5]** , It was held that the inherent jurisdiction vested in the High Court, as recognized and preserved by Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, is primarily to prevent abuse of the process of court or to secure the ends of justice. The guiding light behind the exercise of inherent power is to do real, complete and substantial justice. It was also held that while examining the prayer for quashing of a non compoundable offence, on the basis of settlement of the dispute between the wrongful doer and the victim, this Court must necessarily consider whether the possibility of conviction is remote and oblique and further as to whether the continuation of the criminal proceedings would lead to oppression and prejudice. The courts were reminded that the antecedents of the accused, possible lack of bona fides, his past conduct, including his earlier abscondance, and as to how he had managed to enter into a compromise with the victim are some of the factors which are to reckoned while exercising this extraordinary power. The Apex Court had also cautioned that this Court, when called upon to exercise the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C to bring the criminal case to an end on the basis of settlement, must steer clear of intervention in heinous or serious offences, including those involving mental depravity, as indeed economic offences affecting the financial > 3 [(2014) 6 SCC 466] > 4 [(2017) 9 SCC 641] > 5 [(2019) 4 SCALE 200]. CRL.MC:5136/2019 6 and economic well being of the State, such as murder, attempt to murder, extortion, forgery, rape, dacoity, financial or economic frauds, cases under Arms Act, etc. Those offences were held as having a tendency to have a serious impact upon the society and continuation of trial thereof is essential due to overriding element of public interest. It was also held that the mere fact that the police have incorporated a grave offence in the FIR or the final report would not be a deterrent if the records reveal that the ingredients of the offence are not made out. 9. In the light of the above principles, I have perused the prosecution records. The injuries allegedly inflicted by the petitioners cannot be said to be grave and serious having ingredients of extreme mental depravity. I have also noted the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that the statements of the victims have been recorded by the investigating officer and that they have asserted that it is not in their best interest that the prosecution proceedings continue. Having considered the case in hand on the touchstone of the aforementioned parameters, I am of the view that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace. In a case such as the instant one, even if the prosecution is allowed to continue, it would not serve any purpose as the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. It can only result in putting the victims and the accused to unwanted oppression and prejudice. CRL.MC:5136/2019 7 Settlement will augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony. In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-I final report and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as S.C. No.61 of 2017 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kasaragod, are quashed. **Sd/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE** krj CRL.MC:5136/2019 8 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** |**ANNEXURE**|**1**|**THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN**| |---|---|---| |||**S.C NO. 61/2017 ON THE FILES OF THE**| |||**ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, KASARAGOD, IN**| |||**CRIME NO. 252/ 2013 OF MANJESHWAR POLICE**| |||**STATION, KASARAGOD.**| |**ANNEXURE**|**II**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY**| |||**THE 2ND RESPONDENT.**| |**ANNEXURE**|**III**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY**| |||**THE 3RD RESPONDENT.**| |**ANNEXURE**|**IV**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY**| |||**THE 4TH RESPONDENT.**|