High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-10-04Petition allowed; FIR and proceedings quashed.

Adith s/o Shajith Kumar; Midhun s/o Sreenivasan; Aslam s/o Aboobacker v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C. No. 5567 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V., J.
Judgment Date: 2016-10-04
Court Decision / Holding: Petition allowed; quashing of the FIR in Crime No. 137/2016 and all proceedings against the petitioners.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; FIR and proceedings quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Adith s/o Shajith Kumar
Midhun s/o Sreenivasan
Aslam s/o Aboobacker

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Melattur Police Station, through Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Muhammed Binul Majeed S/O Abdul Majeed

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Sri U.K. Devidas

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Amjad Ali (Public Prosecutor)
• Adv. Sri Prinsun Philip R

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a criminal miscellaneous case under Section 482 CrPC filed by accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No. 137/2016 of Melattur Police Station, Malappuram, challenging proceedings initiated for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 r/w Section 44 IPC and Section 4 of the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act. The petitioners—young students aged about 20—are alleged to have wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant, questioned his unkempt appearance, demanded shaving of his beard, and caused simple hurt on 31.03.2016 around 12:15 pm. The accused contend that the disputes have been amicably resolved; Annexure II contains an affidavit to that effect, and the de facto complainant’s statement indicates he was compensated with Rs. 1,40,000, with settlement achieved at the instance of the parents. The court canvasses the settled position in light of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another, noting that Section 482 CrPC power extends beyond quashing within Section 320 CrPC and can apply to private settlements, particularly where the offence lacks grave seriousness and where society’s impact is minimal. It also cites Narinder Singh and Rajesh Kamath J. authorities. After examining the circumstances, the court holds that continued proceedings would amount to oppression/prejudice and would not serve public interest. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the FIR and all proceedings are quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 CrPCSections 341, 323 r/w 44 IPCSection 4 of the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging ActSection 320 CrPC (referenced)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Power under Section 482 CrPC can be invoked to quash even in cases with private settlements, not limited to Section 320 CrPC.
Offences with an overwhelming or predominating civil flavour may be quashed on settlement, avoiding oppression or prejudice to private parties.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that there was an amicable settlement evidenced by Annexure II. The second respondent’s statement shows compensation and that the disputes have been resolved. They argued that continuing the criminal proceedings would be futile, oppressive, and prejudicial given the private/civil flavour of the dispute and the lack of grave crime.

Contentions of Respondents

The Second Respondent, supported by the material in Annexure II and the statement of compensation, contended that the matter had been amicably resolved and there was no wish to pursue the case further; the state’s position remained that quashing could be considered in light of settled background and private settlement.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another	2012 (10) SCC 303	Positive	The court relies on Gian Singh to exercise 482 CrPC power in private settlement scenarios, including those involving offences with private/public interplay, and not limited to 320 CrPC.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	2014 (6) SCC 466	Positive	Cited for guidelines on exercising 482 CrPC in cases of private settlements and civil flavour, reinforcing the private settlement approach.
Rajesh Kamath J. and Others v. Mohana Kurup and Others	AIR 2016 SC 2452	Positive	Referenced for contemporary guidelines on 482 CrPC quashing in settled matters.

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 Adith s/o Shajith Kumar; Midhun s/o Sreenivasan; Aslam s/o Aboobacker v. 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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/12TH ASWINA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 5567 of 2016 () ---------------------------** **CRIME NO. 137/2016 OF MELATTUR POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3: --------------------------------** **1. ADITH S/O.SHAJITH KUMAR, AGED 20 YEARS, 'SOUMYA' ELAPARAMB HOUSE, EDAKKAD.P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 005.** **2. MIDHUN S/O.SREENIVASAN, AGED 20 YEARS, VARIPALAPPIL HOUSE, PIDAVANNUR.P.O., NANNAMMUKKU, PONNANI TALUK.** **3. ASLAM S/O.ABOOBACKER, AGED 20 YEARS, PULIKKALTHODI HOUSE, CHEMBRAKATTUR, AREEKODE, ERANAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS** **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE/COMPLAINANT:** **--------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,** **MELATTUR POLICE STATION THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **Contd...** **:2:** ## **2. MUHAMMED BINUL MAJEED** **S/O.ABDUL MAJEED, AGED 19 YEARS, KOORIMANNIL HOUSE, ERANGIMANGAD.P.O., AKAMBADAM, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.679 343.** **R2 BY ADV. SRI.PRINSUN PHILIP R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.AMJAD ALI** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **CONTD...** ## **:3:** **Crl.MC.No. 5567 of 2016 () ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-----------------------** **ANNEXURE I COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT AND FIRST INFORMATION STATEMENT IN CRIME NO.137/2016 OF MELATTUR POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE II THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 20.08.2016 EXECUTED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL** **-----------------------** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **SKS** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 5567 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 4[th] October, 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **ORDER** - 1.This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Code') for quashing the proceedings has been preferred by the petitioners herein, who are the accused Nos. 1 to 3, in Crime No. 137 of 2016 of Melattur Police Station. In the said case, they stand indicted for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 r/w Section 44 of the IPC and under Section 4 of the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act. The aforesaid crime was registered at the instance of the 2[nd] respondent herein. - 2.The prosecution allegation is that on 31.03.2016 about - 12.15 pm, the petitioners had wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and questioned him as to why he is walking around in an unkempt manner and without taking a hair cut. He was asked to shave his beard as well. 2 Crl.M.C. No. 5567 of 2016 Thereafter they are alleged to have caused simple hurt . - 3.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the 2[nd] respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor. - 4.The learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent / de facto complainant would submit that the petitioners as well as the 2[nd] respondent were students of the same Engineering College and that they are close friends now. It is asserted that he does no wish to prosecute the petitioners any more.The learned Counsel would also refer to Annexure-II affidavit and would contend that the disputes between the petitioners and the 2[nd] respondent has been amicably resolved. - 5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that in view of the Annexure-II affidavit, no purpose will be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings. Crl.M.C. No. 5567 of 2016 3 - 6.The learned Public Prosecutor was directed to get specific instructions in this regard. - 7.The Public Prosecutor has handed over the statement of the 2[nd] respondent recorded by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Melattur Police Station. In the said statement, the 2[nd] respondent has informed the officer that the petitioners had compensated him by paying a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- (Rupees One lakh forty thousand only) and that the disputes have been resolved at the instance of the parents - 8.The question whether this Court will be justified in exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the criminal proceedings on the basis of settlement is no longer res integra. 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 4 Crl.M.C. No. 5567 of 2016 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 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. Or even offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry Crl.M.C. No. 5567 of 2016 5 etc. or family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal. 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]. 9.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. It would also put the petitioners and the 2[nd] respondent to great oppression and prejudice. 10.Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of Crl.M.C. No. 5567 of 2016 6 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-I, FIR in Crime No. 137 of 2016 of the Melattur Police Station are all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners are quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE** SKS //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE