AbooBakkar, Saidalavi and Hamza v. State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
Judgment Date: 2016-10-21
Court Decision / Holding: The petition under Section 482 CrPC is allowed; SC No. 518 of 2010 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Manjeri is quashed; final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto are quashed.
Final Disposition: Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

AbooBakkar
Saidalavi
Hamza

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor
Ameen s/o Mohammedali

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Sri. Arun Mathew Vadakkan

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri K.P. Sudheer (for Respondent 2)
• Sri T.R. Renjith (Public Prosecutor)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash S.C. No. 518 of 2010 filed in the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Manjeri, arising from an alleged 2010 assault under IPC sections 323, 324, and 308 read with 34. The petitioners—AbooBakkar, Saidalavi, and Hamza—appearing through Adv. Arun Mathew Vadakkan, contend that civil disputes between the parties, including a pathway dispute resolved by a settlement (Annexure A4) and an affidavit (Annexure A5), have eliminated acrimony, and all pending civil and criminal disputes should be withdrawn. The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor with the consent of the complainant, agrees that quashing would foster peace and harmony. The court recalls Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another, which held that 482 CrPC powers extend beyond the ambit of Section 320 to include settlements between private parties and that the power can be used where there is a civil flavour, though not for crimes against society; Narinder Singh and Rajesh Kamath guidelines are noted. The judge finds the alleged offence not grave, the likelihood of conviction remote, and the settlement in the community interest. Accordingly, the court exercises its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and allows the petition, quashing the proceedings in SC 518/2010 and the final report. The order emphasizes settlement and peace as the guiding public interest.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the CrPCSections 323, 324, 308 r/w 34 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another, 2012 (10) SCC 303 – Quashing under 482 CrPC can be based on settlements between private parties (civil flavour) but not for crimes against society.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2014 (6) SCC 466 – Guidelines for exercise of 482 CrPC.
Rajesh Kamath J. and Others v. Mohana Kurup and Others, AIR 2016 SC 2452 – Additional guidelines on 482 CrPC.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argued that a settlement of all pending civil and criminal disputes (Annexure-A4 and Annexure-A5) eradicates acrimony and that quashing under 482 CrPC would conserve public peace and harmony. They contend the offences are not grave, conviction is unlikely, and private settlement should permit quashing per Gian Singh’s exposition that 482 can apply in civil-flavour cases between private parties.

Contentions of Respondents

The State/prosecutor submitted that the disputes have been resolved and, in view of the settlement and absence of serious objections, quashing would promote peace and harmony; there is no sustained public interest in continuing the criminal proceedings given the settlement.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another	2012 (10) SCC 303	Positive	Held that 482 CrPC power may be exercised for quashing on private settlements and can extend to civil-flavour disputes, though not for crimes against society.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	2014 (6) SCC 466	Mentioned Only	Cited for guidelines on the exercise of 482 CrPC; not the sole basis for decision.
Rajesh Kamath J. and Others v. Mohana Kurup and Others	AIR 2016 SC 2452	Mentioned Only	Cited as recent guideline; not controlling in the present case.

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 FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/29TH ASWINA, 1938 Crl.MC.No. 6036 of 2016 () --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 518/2010 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, MANJERI DATED CRIME NO. 119/2010 OF THIRURANGADI POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED: --------------------- 1. ABOOBAKKAR AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMAD POOCHENGAL KUNNATH, PANTHARANGADI POST THRIKKULAM, PALLIPPADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN-676306. 2. SAIDALAVI S/O.MOHAMMED, AGED 46 YEARS POOCHENGAL KUNNATH HOUSE, PALLIPPADY PALATHINGAL, PANTHARANGADI P.O. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. HAMZA S/O.MOHAMMED, AGED 42 YEARS POOCHENGALKUNNATH HOUSE, PALLIPPADY, PALATHINGAL, PANTHARANGADI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ARUN MATHEW VADAKKAN RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE TIRURANGADI POLICE STATION TIRURANGADI-676306, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. AMEEN S/O.MOHAMMEDALI, AGED 30 YEARS POOCHENGAL KUNNATH HOUSE, PALLIPPADI, PANTHARANGADI POST THRIKKULAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676306. R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.T.R.RENJITH THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CONTD... **==> picture [23 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** Crl.MC.No. 6036 of 2016 () --------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR DT.13-2-2010 IN CRIME 119/2010 OF TIRURANGADI POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DT.31-7-2010 IN CRIME 119/2010 OF TIRURANGADI POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT DT.12-1-2010 IN OS 17/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT , PARAPPANANGADI. ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DT. 24-9-2015 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PARTIES. ANNEXURE A5 AFFIDAVIT DT.22-8-2016 EXECUTED BY R2. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL ----------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE SKS **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J. ---------------------------------Crl. M.C. No. 6036 of 2016 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 21[st] day of October, 2016** ## **O R D E R** - 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 him as S.C. No. 518 of 2010 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge-I, Manjeri. In the said case, they stand indicted for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 308 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. - 2.The prosecution allegation is that, on 13.02.2010 at 1.00 pm, the petitioners assaulted the 2[nd] respondent with weapons and caused injuries. - 3.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the 2[nd] respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor. It is submitted that there was a dispute concerning a pathway which led to the institution of **Crl. M.C. No. 6036 of 2016** -2- O.S.No.117 of 2010 before the Court of the Munsiff, Parappanangadi. As an aftermath to the civil proceedings, several criminal cases happened to be registered against the rival parties. Finally, at the instance of mediators and well-wishers, all pending disputes were settled and the parties are living in peace and harmony. It is urged that the pendency of the criminal proceedings will fuel fresh disputes and is likely to disturb the amity between the parties. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the 2[nd] respondent relies on Annexure-A4 settlement agreement wherein both the parties have agreed that all pending civil and criminal disputes will be withdrawn. 4.Learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent refers to Annexure-A5 affidavit sworn to by him and submits that no acrimony exists between the parties. According to the learned counsel, the 2[nd] respondent has no objection in quashing the proceedings. **Crl. M.C. No. 6036 of 2016** -3- - 5.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. - 6.The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions has submitted that the disputes have been resolved and in view of Annexure-A5, the State has no serious objections in quashing the proceedings as it would bring about peace and harmony between the rival parties. - 7.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 **Crl. M.C. No. 6036 of 2016** -4- 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 having an overwhelming and predominatingly civil flavour, particularly offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership, or such like transactions. 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]. **Crl. M.C. No. 6036 of 2016** -5- 8.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 respondent No.2 has 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. Further more, settlement will augur well for the interest for the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony. - 9.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-A2 final report and all proceedings pursuant **Crl. M.C. No. 6036 of 2016** -6- thereto against the petitioners now pending as S.C. No. 518 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Manjeri are quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE** SKS //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE