High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2019-08-02Petition dismissed

Aravind and Others v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No.3381 of 2019

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
Judgment Date: 2019-08-02
Court Decision / Holding: The petition will stand dismissed.
Final Disposition: Petition dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Aravind
Hakkeemudheen
Noushad
Arangodan Kirandas
Abdul Rasheed

Respondents

The State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
The Station House Officer, Manjeri Police Station, Malappuram District
Muhammad Fazil
Shibi
Shafeeque
Ragesh

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri K.S.Praveen

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Rakesh K. (for respondents 3-6)
• Public Prosecutor Sri Ramesh Chand

Case Synopsis & Summary

The Kerala High Court, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, declined to quash a criminal proceeding (S.C. No.509 of 2017) arising from Crime No.1615/2015 of Manjeri Police Station. The petitioners—Aravind, Hakkeemudheen, Noushad, Arangodan Kirandas, and Abdul Rasheed—were accused in offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 308 and 307 read with 149 IPC. The respondents included the State/Public Prosecutor, the Manjeri SHO, and alleged victims Muhammed Fazil, Shibi, Shafeeque and Ragesh. The petition sought to quash the proceedings on the basis of a settlement between the victims and the offenders, arguing the act was private in nature and continuation would cause oppression without public interest. The court noted that while settlement can influence the exercise of inherent power, the offences are grave, with multiple prior offences noted against the petitioners, including serious injuries and attempted murder (307 IPC). Citing Supreme Court precedents, including Gian Singh and others, the court held that the power under Section 482 should not be used to terminate proceedings in heinous or public-interest offences and that continuation of trial is essential where the offences impact society. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, preserving the due process rights of the state and public interest in serious crimes.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the CrPCSections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 308, 307 read with Section 149 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process and to secure ends of justice
Guiding light behind the exercise of inherent power is to do real, complete and substantial justice
When quashing non-compoundable offences on the basis of settlement, consider whether the possibility of conviction is remote and whether continuation would lead to oppression and prejudice
Antecedents, lack of bona fides, past conduct, including abscondance, and gravity of allegations are relevant factors
Court should refrain from intervening in heinous or serious offences (e.g., murder, attempt to murder, extortion, rape, dacoity, etc.) and economic offences, where continuation of trial is essential
Offence under Section 307 IPC is grave and cannot be treated as a private dispute; it is a crime against society

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that a compromise/settlement arrived at between the victims and the offenders should allow quashing under the inherent powers, as the wrongdoing is primarily private in nature and continued prosecution would cause oppression. They argued that conviction is unlikely given the agreement, and public interest would not be affected by ending the proceedings.

Contentions of Respondents

The State and victims opposed quashing, emphasizing the gravity of the alleged offences—especially Section 307 IPC—and the petitioners’ criminal antecedents. They asserted that the offences involve serious injury and are not private in nature; thus, the criminal process should not be collapsed by settlement.

Cited Precedents (7)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr	(2012) 10 SCC 303	Positive	Established the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice, including in settlement scenarios.
Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and Another	(2013) 4 SCC 58	Mentioned Only	Cited among authorities discussing settlement but not expressly relied upon for a decisive ruling.
Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another	(2014) 6 SCC 466	Mentioned Only	Referenced in context of settlement and inherent powers without explicit adoption of its principles.
Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another	(2017) 9 SCC 641	Mentioned Only	Cited as part of the development of the law on quashing in settlement scenarios; not expressly adopted.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and others	(2019) 4 SCALE 200	Mentioned Only	Cited in discussion of general principles; not a controlling authority in this case.
State of M.P. v. Manish and Others	(2015) 8 SCC 307	Positive	Held that offences under Section 307 are grave and cannot be treated as private disputes; supports public interest in continuing trial.
State of M.P. v. Kalyan Singh and Another	AIR 2019 SC 312	Positive	Affirmed that Section 307 offences are grave and not private; used to reinforce public interest in continuing prosecution.

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 Aravind and Others v. State of Kerala and Others 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 02ND DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1941** ## **Crl.MC.No.3381 of 2019** **AGAINST THE PROCEEDINGS IN SC 509/2017 ONTHE FILES OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-II, MANJERI** **CRIME NO.1615/2015 OF Manjeri Police Station, Malappuram** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:** - **1 ARAVIND, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. RAVEENDRAN, CHEENIKKATHODI HOUSE, KARUVAMBRAM.P.O, MELAKKOM, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** - **2 HAKKEEMUDHEEN, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.HAMZA, PUTHIYAKATH HOUSE, KARUVAMBRAM.P.O, MELAKKOM,. MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** - **3 NOUSHAD @ KUNHIPPA, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.MOIDEEN, MADATHILPARAMBU HOUSE, PATTARKULAM, NARUKARA.P.O, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** - **4 ARANGODAN KIRANDAS, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O CHANDRADAS, NECHIKUNDIIL HOUSE, THURAKKAL, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** - **5 ABDUL RASHEED, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, PARANTHODI HOUSE, MELAKKOM, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.PRAVEEN** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE, DE FACTO COMPLAINANT & INJURED:** - **1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031.** - **2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MANJERI POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-676121.** Crl.MC.3381/2019 2 - **3 MUHAMMED FAZIL, S/O.KUNHALAVI, PUZHIKUTHU HOUSE, CHERANI, ERNAD TALUK, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676121.** - **4 SHIBI, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, PALLIYARAKAL HOUSE, KUTHUKAL,MANJERI AMSOM, ERNAD TALUK, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676121.** - **5 SHAFEEQUE, S/O.MUHAMMEDALI, POOZHIKUTHU VEETTIL HOUSE, MANGALASSERY, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676121.** - **6 RAGESH, S/O.RAMAN, NADAMPADI VEETTIL HOUSE, MANGALASSERY, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676121.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.K.RAKESH** **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAMESH CHAND** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Crl.MC.3381/2019 3 ## **ORDER** Invoking the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the Code”, for short), the petitioners have approached this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them by the 3[rd] respondent herein, which is now pending on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-II, Manjeri as S.C. No.509 of 2017. In the above proceeding, they face indictment for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 308, 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC. 2. The prosecution allegation is that on 15.11.2015 at about 11.30 pm, the petitioners formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common object, attacked the party respondents with deadly weapons causing serious injuries. 3. Heard Sri.K.S.Praveen, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.Rakesh K., the learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 6, and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Sri.Rakesh K., the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents, submitted that after much deliberations, the victims have resolved their disputes and differences with the petitioners and they have now decided that the continuance of criminal proceedings is an unwanted exercise. He refers to the affidavits filed by the victims before this Court and asserts that they have Crl.MC.3381/2019 4 no objection in bringing the prosecution proceedings to a premature termination. 5. Sri. K.S.Praveen, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, urged that in view of the compromise arrived at between the victims and the offenders, the possibility of conviction is bleak and the continuation of the criminal proceedings will only inure to put both the parties to oppression and prejudice. Both sides submit that the wrong is basically private in nature and no public interest is involved. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor, has very strenuously opposed the prayer. He submitted that the petitioners are persons with criminal antecedents and according to him, the 2[nd] petitioner is involved in as many as two crimes, 3[rd] petitioner is involved in two crimes, and the 4[th] petitioner is involved in four crimes. The offence alleged is one under Section 307 of the IPC, which by no stretch of imagination can be said to be strictly private, contends the learned Public Prosecutor. 7. I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the records. 8. The factors that are to be borne while exercising powers conferred on this Court by Section 482 of the Code in the context of considering a prayer for quashing criminal proceedings on the basis of resolution of disputes between the offender and the victim have been laid down by the Apex Court in **Gian** Crl.MC.3381/2019 5 **Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr** . [(2012) 10 SCC 303]; **Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and Another** [(2013) 4 SCC 58]; **Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another** [(2014) 6 SCC 466]; **Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another** [(2017) 9 SCC 641] and **State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and others** , [(2019) 4 SCALE 200]. It was held that the inherent jurisdiction vested in the High Court, as recognized and preserved by Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, is primarily to prevent abuse of the process of court or to secure the ends of justice. The guiding light behind the exercise of inherent power is to do real, complete and substantial justice. It was also held that while examining the prayer for quashing of a non compoundable offence, on the basis of settlement of the dispute between the wrongful doer and the victim, this Court must necessarily consider whether the possibility of conviction is remote and oblique and further as to whether the continuation of the criminal proceedings would lead to oppression and prejudice. The courts were reminded that the antecedents of the accused, possible lack of bona fides, his past conduct, including his earlier abscondance, and as to how he had managed to enter into a compromise with the victim are some of the factors which are to reckoned while exercising this extraordinary power. The Apex Court had also cautioned that this Court, when called upon to exercise the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C to bring the criminal case to an end on the basis Crl.MC.3381/2019 6 of settlement, must steer clear of intervention in heinous or serious offences, including those involving mental depravity, as indeed economic offences affecting the financial and economic well being of the State, such as murder, attempt to murder, extortion, forgery, rape, dacoity, financial or economic frauds, cases under Arms Act, etc. Those offences were held as having a tendency to have a serious impact upon the society and continuation of trial thereof is essential due to overriding element of public interest. 9. In **State of M.P. v. Manish and Others** [(2015)] 8 SCC 307) and also in **State of M.P. v. Kalyan Singh and Another** [AIR 2019 (SC) 312, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that offence under Section 307 would fall in the grave category and cannot be treated as a private dispute between the parties inter se, but is to be held to be a crime against the society. 10. In the case on hand, the allegations are extremely grave as well. The records reveal that the petitioners are involved in several other crimes involving offences under Section 307, 308 and 326 of the IPC. As held by the Apex Court the antecedents of the accused, possible lack of bona fides, his past conduct and the gravity of the allegations are some of the factors which are to reckoned while exercising the extraordinary power to quash the proceedings on the ground of settlement **.** Having considered all the relevant aspects, I am of the considered view that the acts committed by the petitioners would definitely Crl.MC.3381/2019 7 have a serious impact upon the society and continuation of trial thereof is essential due to overriding element of public interest. The petition will stand dismissed. ## **SD/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE** KRJ //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Crl.MC.3381/2019 8 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** |**ANNEXURE A**|**TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R.AND THE F.I.S.IN**| |---|---| ||**CRIME NO.1615/15 OF MANJERI POLICE STATION**| ||**DT,16-11-2015.**| |**ANNEXURE B**|**TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT/CHARGE IN**| ||**CRIME NO.1615/2015 OF THE MANJERI POLICE**| ||**STATION.**| |**ANNEXURE C**|**THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 3RD**| ||**RESPONDENT DATED,30.4.2019.**| |**ANNEXURE D**|**THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 4TH**| ||**RESPONDENT DATED,30.4.2019.**| |**ANNEXURE E**|**THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 5TH**| ||**RESPONDENT DATED,30.4.2019.**| |**ANNEXURE F**|**THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 6TH**| ||**RESPONDENT DATED,30.4.2019.**|