High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-10-21Petition allowed; proceedings quashed.

ABOOBAKKAR v. STATE OF KERALA and YAKOOB

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No. 6026 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
Judgment Date: 2016-10-21
Court Decision / Holding: In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A2 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner now pending as CC 867 of 2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Parappanangadi are quashed.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; proceedings quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

ABOOBAKKAR

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Yakob S/o Saidalavi

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Sri. Arun Mathew Vadakkan
• Adv.

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri K.P. Sudheer R
• Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala

Case Synopsis & Summary

The Kerala High Court, exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, intervened in a criminal matter arising from CC 867/2010 (JFCM Parappanangadi) involving offences under Sections 341, 324 and 427 IPC. The petitioner, ABOOBAKKAR, challenged the continuation of proceedings, arguing that a civil dispute over a pathway had devolved into multiple criminal cases between the private parties. The civil dispute culminated in proceedings O.S. No. 117/2010 before the Munsiff, Parappanangadi, and was later settled by a comprehensive settlement (Annexure-A4) wherein both parties agreed to withdraw pending civil and criminal disputes. Annexure-A5 contains an affidavit from the 2nd respondent indicating no acrimony. The State and the 2nd respondent neither contested nor objected to quashing in light of the settlement. The court relied on Supreme Court authority, notably Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another, which held that 482 CrPC powers extend beyond Section 320 and may be exercised where settlements exist in matters with civil flavour; and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Rajesh Kamath J. v. Mohana Kurup and Others, to formulate guidelines. The judge found the offence not grave, with limited societal impact, and that continuing proceedings would frustrate peace and harmony. Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the proceedings quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the CrPCSections 341, 324 and 427 of IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC can be based on settlements between private parties (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another).
High Court power under Section 482 is exercisable in cases with overwhelming civil flavour and where parties have settled their entire dispute (Gian Singh; Narinder Singh).
Guidelines laid down in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Rajesh Kamath J. v. Mohana Kurup and Others.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicant submits that a civil dispute regarding a pathway escalated into criminal prosecutions, but a settlement dated Annexure-A4 has been reached wherein all pending civil and criminal disputes would be withdrawn. Annexure-A5 confirms no acrimony. Given the settlement and lack of serious criminal gravity, quashing under Section 482 CrPC is appropriate to prevent further disputes and to restore peace. The State has no objection in view of the settlement, aligning with the principles laid down in Gian Singh and subsequent cases that private settlements can justify quashing when the dispute is civil in nature.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the disputes have been resolved by the Annexure-A4 settlement, and since there is no acrimony and no societal impact, quashing is justified under 482 CrPC. They rely on Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, and Rajesh Kamath J. to support the position that quashing can be exercised where disputes have been settled and the matter lacks public interest in continuation.

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 powers can be used to quash based on settlements between private parties and in cases with civil flavour, not confined to Section 320.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	2014 (6) SCC 466	Positive	Provided guidelines for exercise of powers under 482 in settlement scenarios.
Rajesh Kamath J. and Others v. Mohana Kurup and Others	AIR 2016 SC 2452	Positive	Recent Supreme Court decision reinforcing settlement-based quashing.

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 ABOOBAKKAR v. STATE OF KERALA and YAKOOB 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 FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/29TH ASWINA, 1938 Crl.MC.No. 6026 of 2016 () --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 867/2010 of J.M.F.C.,PARAPPANANGADI DATED CRIME NO. 9/2010 OF THIRURANGADI POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED: --------------------- ABOOBAKKAR AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMAD, POOCHENGAL KUNNATH, PANTHARANGADI POST, THRIKKULAM, PALLIPPADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676306. BY ADV. SRI.ARUN MATHEW VADAKKAN RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & 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. YAKOOB S/O.SAIDALAVI, AGED 37 YEARS, MACHINGAL HOUSE, PANTHARANGADI POST, THRIKKULAM, PALLIPPADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 676306. R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 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. 6026 of 2016 () --------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- ANNEXURE A1: CERTIFIED COPY OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORT DATED 3.1.2010 IN CRIME NO.9/2010 OF TIRURANGADI POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE-A2: CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT DATED 30.01.2010 IN CRIME NO.9/2010 OF TIRURANGADI POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE-A3: TRUE COPY OF PLAINT DATED 12.1.2010 IN O.S.NO.17/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PARAPPANANGADI. ANNEXURE-A4: TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 24.9.2015 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PARTIES. ANNEXURE-A5: AFFIDVIT DATED 27.8.2016 EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL ----------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE SKS **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J. ---------------------------------Crl. M.C. No. 6026 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 petitioner herein for quashing the proceedings pending against him as C.C. No. 867 of 2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Parappanangadi. In the said case, he stands indicted for offences punishable under Sections 341, 324 and 427 of the IPC. - 2.The prosecution allegation is that, on 2.1.2010 at 7.00 pm, the petitioner wrongfully restrained the 2[nd] respondent and assaulted her causing 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. 6026 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. 6026 of 2016** -3- - 5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner 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-A4, 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. 6026 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. 6026 of 2016** -5- 8.I have considered the rival submissions and I have gone through the materials on record. The offence committed by the petitioner 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 petitioner 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. 6026 of 2016** -6- thereto against the petitioner now pending as C.C. No. 867 of 2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Parappanangadi are quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE** SKS //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE