High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2019-10-16Petition allowed; impugned FIR and all related ...

Abinshogh @ Abinsasi; Vishnu; Mithun v. Muhammed Shahin; Thameem; Muhammed Rithaji; Faheem; State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C.No.7155/2019(D)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: ALEXANDER THOMAS
Judgment Date: 2019-10-16
Court Decision / Holding: The impugned Anx.1 FIR in Crime No.165/2018 of Perambra Police Station, which has led to the pendency of C.P. No. 20/2019, and all further proceedings arising therefrom against the accused are quashed in the interest of justice.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; impugned FIR and all related proceedings quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Abinshogh @ Abinsasi
Vishnu
Mithun

Respondents

Muhammed Shahin
Thameem
Muhammed Rithaji
Faheem
State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Promodh Kumar M.P.
• Maya Chandran

Counsels for Respondents

• Rajesh Nambiar

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a criminal miscellaneous petition filed in the Kerala High Court (Ernakulam) under Crl.M.C. No.7155/2019 (D) by three petitioners — Abinshogh @ Abinsasi, Vishnu and Mithun — challenging the continuation of Crime No.165/2018 of Perambra Police Station and the subsequent proceedings in C.P.No.20/2019 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Perambra. The FIR contains offences under sections 143, 148, 452, 341, 323, 324, 308, and 506 read with section 149 IPC. The petition asserts that the parties have amicably settled all disputes; respondents 1–4 have sworne affidavits (A-2 to A-6) stating their settlement and lack of objection to quashing the prosecution. Drawing on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab (para 29), the High Court exercises its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash in the interest of justice where settlement exists and prosecution would serve no purpose. After careful scrutiny of materials, affidavits, and the legal principles, the court holds that continuing the proceedings would be an undue burden on the judiciary. Consequently, the impugned FIR and all related proceedings are quashed. Certified copies of the order are to be furnished to the investigating officer and the competent court. The order is passed by Alexander Thomas, J., disposing of the petition.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.Sections 143, 148, 452, 341, 323, 324, 308, 506 read with Section 149 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Quashing of criminal proceedings under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. where parties settle and continuation would serve no purpose (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab)
Settlement and pendency of disputes as a basis for quashing (Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that all disputes with the respondents have been settled amicably. They rely on affidavits (A-2 to A-6) sworn by respondents 1–4 stating there is a complete settlement and no objection to quashing the prosecution. They urge the High Court to exercise its inherent power under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the impugned FIR and ongoing proceedings, citing Gian Singh and Narinder Singh to support using settlement as a ground for quashing even in non-compoundable offences.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents 1–4 have provided affidavits indicating that the disputes have been resolved and express their no-objection to quashing the charge. Their stand supports the petition’s prayer, and counsel for the respondents aligns with the court’s approach in recognizing that settlement can render further prosecution unnecessary and wasteful of judicial resources.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 SCC 303	Positive	Cited to support quashing under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. where settlement exists and continued prosecution would waste judicial resources.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr	2014 SCC 466	Positive	Par. 29 cited to reinforce the principle that settlement can warrant quashing even in non-compoundable offences.

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 Abinshogh @ Abinsasi; Vishnu; Mithun v. Muhammed Shahin; Thameem; Muhammed Rithaji; Faheem; State of Kerala 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 ALEXANDER THOMAS** **WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 24TH ASWINA, 1941** **Crl.MC.No.7155 OF 2019(D)** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CP 20/2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,PERAMBRA CRIME NO.165/2018 OF Perambra Police Station , Kozhikode** ## **PETITIONER/S:** - **1 ABINSHOGH @ ABINSASI, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O SASI,PUTHUVANIMEETHAL HOUSE, NOCHADU P.O., VELLIYOOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** - **2 VISHNU, AGED 19 YEARS, S/O RAVI, KALAPPURATHODIYIL, CHENOLI, NOCHADU MULIYANDAN LAKSHAMVEEDU COLONY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** - **3 MITHUN, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O MANOJ, KAYANOTHU, AVADUKKA P O, PANTHIRAKKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT** **BY ADVS. SRI.M.PROMODH KUMAR SMT.MAYA CHANDRAN** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 MUHAMMED SHAHIN, AGED 17 YEARS, (MINOR), S/O MAMMU, PARAKKAL VEEDU, KAVIL P O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, REP. BY HIS FATHER - MAMMU, AGED 63 YEARS, PARAKKAL HOUSE,KAVIL P O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 614** - **2 THAMEEM, AGED 17 YEARS, SO/ MUNEER, RAYAROTH, KAITHAKKAL, CHENOLI P O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,REP. BY HIS MOTHER, NEXT FRIEND, BUSHRA AGED 38 YEARS, RAYAROTH, KAITHAKKAL, CHENOLI P O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 525** - **3 MUHAMMED RITHAJI, AGED 17 YEARS, S/O ASHRAF, EROTH HOUSE, THITHARIYOOR P O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, REP. BY HIS FATHER ASHRAF, AGED 46 YEARS, EROTH HOUSE,KEEZHARIYOOR P O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 307** **4 FAHEEM, AGED 17 YEARS, S/O RASHEED, CHALIL HOUSE, KAVIL PO PALLIYATH, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. REP. BY HIS FATHER, RASHEED, AGED 45 YEARS,S/O MAYAN KUTTY, CHALIL HOUSE, KAVIL P.O KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 614.** 5 **STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM – 31.** **R1-4 BY ADV. RAJESH NAMBIAR** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SRI.T.R.RENJITH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.** ================== Crl.M.C.No. 7155 of 2019 ================== Dated this the 16[th] day of October, 2019 **O R D E R** The petitioners herein are accused in the impugned Anx.1 FIR in Crime No.165/2018 of Perambra Police Station, registered for offences punishable under Secs.143, 148, 452, 341, 323, 324, 308, 506 read with Sec. 149 of the I.P.C., which has led to the pendency of C.P.No.20/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Perambra, at the instance of respondents 1 to 4. It is stated that now the entire disputes between the petitioners and respondents 1 to 4 have been settled amicably and that respondents 1 to 4 have sworn to Anxs. A-2 to A-6 affidavits respectively, before this Court, wherein it is stated that they have settled the entire disputes with the petitioners and that they have no objection for quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners. It is in the light of these aspects that the petitioners have preferred the instant Crl.M.C. with the prayer to quash the impugned criminal proceedings against them. 2. In a catena of decisions, the Apex Court has held that, in appropriate cases involving even non-compoundable offences, the High Court can quash prosecution by exercise of the powers under Crl.M.C.No. 7155/19 - : 4 :- Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C., if the parties have really settled the whole dispute or if the continuance of the prosecution will not serve any purpose. Here, this Court finds a real case of settlement between the parties and it is also found that continuance of the prosecution in such a situation will not serve any purpose other than wasting the precious time of the court, when the case ultimately comes before the court. On a perusal of the petition and on a close scrutiny of the investigation materials on record and the affidavit of settlement and taking into account the attendant facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the legal principles laid down by the Apex Court in the cases as in _**Gian Singh** v._ _**State of Punjab**_ reported in 2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 160 = (2012) 10 SCC 303 and _**Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr**_ . reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, more particularly paragraph 29 thereof, could be applied in this case to consider the prayer for quashment. 3. Accordingly, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the impugned Anx.1 FIR in Crime No.165/2018 of Perambra Police Station, which has led to the pendency of C.P.No. 20/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Perambra and all Crl.M.C.No. 7155/19 - : 5 :- further proceedings arising therefrom pending against the accused persons will stand quashed. The petitioners will produce certified copies of this order before the investigating officer concerned and the competent court below concerned. The office of the Advocate General will forward copy of this order to the investigating officer concerned for information. With these observations and directions, the above Criminal Miscellaneous Case stands finally disposed of. sdk+ Sd/- **ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE** Crl.M.C.No. 7155/19 - : 6 :- ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A1 COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.165/2018 OF PERAMBRA POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE A2 COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET DTD.7.2.2019.. ANNEXURE A3 AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY R1. ANNEXURE A4 AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY R2 ANNEXURE A5 AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY R3 ANNEXURE A6 AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY R4** Crl.M.C.No. 7155/19 - : 7 :- Crl.M.C.No. 7155/19 - : 8 :- **Sd/-** **ALEXANDER THOMAS** **JUDGE**