Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgePetition allowed; proceedings quashed; quashing...

Ancil Khan and Others v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC No. 1609 of 2019
Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
Judgment Date
2019-03-08
Court Decision / Holding
This petition is allowed. Annexure-A1 final report and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners in CP No. 115 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Punalur are quashed.
Final Disposition
Petition allowed; proceedings quashed; quashing of CP 115/2018 proceedings against the petitioners deemed appropriate in the interest of peace and harmony per 482 Cr.P.C. doctrine.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Ancil Khan
  • Jaseersha
  • Muneer
  • Sulphiker
  • Abhisher Khan
  • Alimran Khan
  • Riyas
  • Althaf

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
  • Unnimon
  • Jishnu
  • Midhun

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri. Syam J Sam

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri M.J. JIJO ANTONY
  • • Public Prosecutor Sri Ramesh Chand

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Criminal Misc. Case (Crl.MC No. 1609 of 2019) before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam concerns eight accused — Ancil Khan, Jaseersha, Muneer, Sulphiker, Abhisher Khan, Alimran Khan, Riyas, and Althaf — challenging proceedings in CP 115 of 2018 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Punalur. The petition, filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, contends that the offences alleged under IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 341, and 308 read with 149 r/w 149, were committed on 22.09.2017 when the accused allegedly formed an unlawful assembly, restrained respondents 2 to 4, and assaulted them, causing injuries. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the victims and accused have amicably settled the dispute; affidavits from the victims state injuries were not grave; the parties wish to live peacefully; thus quashing would terminate a festering private dispute and avoid oppression. The Public Prosecutor acknowledges no criminal antecedents and says the State has no grievance in quashing. The court notes the settlement appears voluntary and genuine and that the offences are personal, with no public interest at stake. Citing Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, and Yogendra Yadav, the court accepts that High Courts can, in appropriate cases, quash prosecution upon a genuine compromise. Accordingly, the petition is allowed, and the final report and proceedings in CP 115 of 2018 are quashed. The order underscores the aim of preserving peace and harmony.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of Cr.P.C.IPC Section 143IPC Section 147IPC Section 148IPC Section 294(b)IPC Section 323IPC Section 324IPC Section 341IPC Section 308 r/w 149 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Amicable settlement between victim and wrongdoer can terminate criminal proceedings in appropriate cases (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012) 10 SCC 303.
  • High Court may take note of amicable resolution to quash criminal proceedings (Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2014) 6 SCC 466; Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another, 2014) 9 SCC 653.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners' counsel submitted that the victims and offenders have arrived at an amicable settlement and have filed affidavits; the records show no serious injuries. The dispute is private and can be resolved by quashing the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The accommodation would spare the parties from oppression and prejudice and would promote peace and harmony. The court was urged to rely on established Supreme Court doctrine that allows quashing in appropriate cases where there is a genuine compromise.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents (State through the Public Prosecutor and the other respondents) argued that the compromise is voluntary, and the parties have no public interest in continuing the criminal proceedings. The offences are personal in nature and do not affect public peace; the affidavits indicate the parties wish to settle, and the court can consider quashing if the settlement is genuine and voluntary.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab(2012) 10 SCC 303PositiveSupreme Court held that in appropriate cases, the High Court can consider amicable settlements to end criminal proceedings.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab(2014) 6 SCC 466PositiveReiterated the view that amicable settlements may lead to quashing in appropriate cases.
Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another(2014) 9 SCC 653PositiveFurther reiterates the principle of quashing in cases with genuine compromise.

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 Ancil Khan and Others 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** **FRIDAY ,THE 08TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1940** **Crl.MC.No. 1609 of 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CP 115/2018 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III, PUNALUR** **CRIME NO. 1784/2017 OF Pathanapuram Police Station , Kollam** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:** |**1**|**ANCIL KHAN,**| |---|---| ||**AGED 20 YEARS**| ||**S/OMOIDEENKUTTY,**| ||**NADAVANNUR, PUNNALA,**| ||**PIRAVANTHUR, PATHANAPURAM,**| ||**KOLLAM.**| |**2**|**JASEERSHA,**| ||**AGED 20 YEARS**| ||**S/O.SUBAIR,**| ||**CHALUVILA VEEDU, PUNNALA P.O.,**| ||**PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM.**| |**3**|**MUNEER,**| ||**AGED 20 YEARS**| ||**S/O.SHAHJAHAN,**| ||**SHAMEER MANSIL, PUNNALA P.O.,**| ||**PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM.**| |**4**|**SULPHIKER,**| ||**AGED 20 YEARS**| ||**S/O.SAINALUBDHIN,**| ||**POOTHOTTAM, PUNNALA P.O.,**| ||**PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM.**| |**5**|**ABHISHERKHAN,**| **Crl.MC.No. 1609 of 2019** **2** **AGED 21 YEARS S/O.KABEER, KOCHAYATHU VEEDU, PUNNALA P.O., PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM.** - **6 ALIMRAN KHAN, AGED 23 YEARS S/O.SHAHJAHAN, SHAMEER MANSIL, PUNNALA P.O., PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM.** - **7 RIYAS, AGED 23 YEARS S/O.PEERUMOHAMMED, KULATHARAMON THEKKEKARA VEEDU, PUNNALA P.O., PATHANAPURAM , KOLLAM.** - **8 ALTHAF, AGED 19 YEARS S/O.ABUBAKER, POOTHOTTAM, PUNNALA P.O., PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.SYAM J SAM** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** - **2 UNNIMON, AGED 18 YEARS S/O.RAVI, UNNI BHAVAN, PUNNALA P.O., PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM.** - **3 JISHNU, AGED 23 YEARS** **S/O.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, THONKODU PUTHEN VEEDU, PUNNALA P.O., PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM.** **Crl.MC.No. 1609 of 2019** **3** **4 MIDHUN, AGED 22 YEARS S/O.SUNIL, SREESOUDHAM, ELLIKATTOOR, PIRAVANTHUR P.O., PATHANAPURAM.** **BY ADV. SRI.M.J.JIJO ANTONY** **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI RAMESH CHAND** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.MC.No. 1609 of 2019** **4** ## **ORDER** This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 2. The petitioners herein are the accused in C.P No.115 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Punalur. In the aforesaid case, they are being proceeded against for having committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 341, 308 r/w. Section 149 of the IPC. 3. On 22.09.2017 at about 6.30 p.m., the petitioners herein formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object wrongfully restrained the respondents 2 to 4 and attacked them causing injuries. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the party respondents and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the victims and the offenders have arrived at a compromise and narrating the said fact, the victims have filed separate affidavits before this Court. According to the learned counsel, the records would reveal **Crl.MC.No. 1609 of 2019** **5** that no serious injuries were sustained by the victims. The termination of proceedings would resolve a festering private dispute between the parties and it is prayed that the proceedings be quashed. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 would also refer to the affidavits and it is submitted that the parties have not only buried the hatchet, but have decided to live peacefully in future. According to the learned counsel, no purpose would be served in dragging these proceedings. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the petitioners are not persons with criminal antecedents and that the State has no grievance in quashing the proceedings as no public interest is involved. 7. It is thus borne out from the submissions made at the bar that the parties have amicably settled their disputes on their own free will and without any kind of pressure, influence or coercion. The compromise, it is felt, is voluntary and genuine, and can be acted upon. 8. In **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab** [(2012) 10 SCC 303], **Crl.MC.No. 1609 of 2019** **6** the Apex Court has held that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. This view was reiterated in **Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab.** [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and **Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another** [(2014) 9 SCC 653] **.** 9. Having considered the submissions advanced and on perusing the records, it appears that the offences are entirely personal in nature and do not affect public peace or tranquility. The injuries allegedly inflicted by the petitioners cannot be said to be grave and serious having ingredients of extreme mental depravity. It is also felt 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 _de facto_ complainants and the accused to unwanted oppression and prejudice. Settlement will augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony. **Crl.MC.No. 1609 of 2019** **7** In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-A1 final report and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.P No.115 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Punalur are quashed. ## **SD/-** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** ## **JUDGE** //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE avs **Crl.MC.No. 1609 of 2019** **8** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE-A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CP 115/2018 JFCM-III, PUNALUR ALONG WITH FIR. ANNEXURE-A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE-A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE-A4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** **NIL** **avs //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE**