Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed

Arshad and others v. The State of Kerala and others

Case / Petition Number:CRL.MC 4673/2019(D)

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date
2019-08-09
Court Decision / Holding
The petition is allowed. Annexure-I FIR in Crime No.782 of 2019 of the Perumbavoor Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners are quashed.
Final Disposition
Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Arshad
  • Deepu
  • Vijayan
  • Hassan
  • Seid Muhammed
  • Muhammed
  • Ajeesh
  • Shibin

Respondents

  • The State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam - 682 031
  • The Sub Inspector of Police, Perumbavoor Police Station, Ernakulam District - 683 542
  • Sajith, aged 22 years, S/O Balakrishnan, Thondiparambil House, Near AWH College, Kumbidi, Ottapalam Taluk, Palakkad District - 678 001

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri Anoop V. Nair
  • • Sri V.K. Sreejith

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri R. Sreehari

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case (CRL.MC.No.4673 of 2019) arising from Crime No.782 of 2019 registered at Perumbavoor Police Station. The eight petitioners (Arshad, Deepu, Vijayan, Hassan, Seid Muhammed, Muhammed, Ajeesh, Shibin) seek to quash the criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the basis of a settlement with the complainant. The 3rd respondent Sajith, and the State represented by the Public Prosecutor oppose only to the extent of maintaining the proceeding if necessary; however, the victim has resolved his disputes with the petitioners and has expressed that continuing the prosecution is unwarranted. The offense alleged involves wrongful confinement and assault (Sections 365, 323 r/w 34 IPC). The court heard submissions from counsel for the petitioners and the complainant and noted that the investigating officer reports the petitioners are not involved in other crimes; the injuries are not grave; and the victim has stated that continued prosecution is not in his best interest. Relying on Supreme Court precedents (Gian Singh; Jitendra Raghuvanshi; Narinder Singh and Others; Parbatbhai Aahir; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan), the court reiterated the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C to secure ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process when settlement is genuine and public interest is not violated. The court concluded that continued proceedings would be oppressive and prejudicial and that the settlement serves the interest of peace and community welfare. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the FIR and all proceedings are quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of Cr.P.C.Sections 365, 323 r/w 34 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Inherent jurisdiction of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C to prevent abuse of process and to secure ends of justice.
  • Ends of justice as the guiding light for exercise of inherent power.
  • Test: determine if possibility of conviction is remote and continuation would cause oppression or prejudice.
  • Caution against intervention in heinous or serious offences where public interest necessitates continuation of trial.
  • Records must show that compromise is genuine and not a façade for evading law.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that the dispute is essentially private in nature and has been resolved amicably. They highlight the victim’s affidavit stating settlement has been reached and that continuing criminal proceedings would cause oppression and prejudice to both sides. They contend that the injuries alleged are not grave and the possibility of conviction is remote, making continued prosecution futile. The parties are committed to restoring peace and harmony, and there is no public interest that justifies continuation, especially after a genuine compromise and the absence of prior criminal antecedents. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decisions, they urge the court to exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings to secure ends of justice.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents and the complainant acknowledge the settlement but urge that the court must apply the standard tests from Gian Singh and subsequent rulings to ensure that quashing would not undermine public interest. They note that the offences involve a private dispute, the victim favors the settlement, and there is no evidence of broader public harm. The State concedes that if the investigation reveals no further crimes by the accused and the settlement is genuine, quashing could be appropriate. However, the court must ensure that the invocation of inherent power does not erode public safety or permit impunity for serious offences. The substance of the victim’s affidavit and the absence of continuing risk are weighed against any potential miscarriage of justice should the case proceed. A cautious approach is urged, ensuring that the ends of justice are served without undermining public order or the integrity of the process.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr[(2012) 10 SCC 303]PositiveCited as the leading authority recognizing the court's inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash prosecutions in the context of a settlement.
Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and Another[(2013) 4 SCC 58]PositiveCited to support the test for quashing based on settlement and the assessment of remote likelihood of conviction.
Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another[(2014) 6 SCC 466]PositiveCited in the discussion of ends of justice and to emphasize factors such as oppression/prejudice and private nature of the offence.
Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another[(2017) 9 SCC 641]PositiveCited for principles governing quashing in light of settlement and balancing public interest.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and others[(2019) 4 SCALE 200]PositiveCited regarding caution against intervening in serious/offences and the role of public interest in the exercise of inherent power.

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 Arshad and others v. The 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 09TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 18TH SRAVANA, 1941** ## **Crl.MC.No.4673 OF 2019(D)** **CRIME NO.782/2019 OF THE PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:** - **1 ARSHAD, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.ABOOBACKER, THUAKATTIL HOUSE, KAPPOOR VILLAGE, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** - **2 DEEPU, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.SURESH, KIZHAKEKARA HOUSE, KALLADATHOOR KARA, KAPPOOR VILLAGE, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** - **3 VIJAYAN, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.MOHANAN, AALAKKASSERY HOUSE, PATTITHARA VILLAGE, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** - **4 HASSAN, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.ABU, MELAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PANDINJAREKUDY KARA, PATTITHRA VILLAGE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** - **5 SEID MUHAMMED, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.MUSTHAFA, MANGATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, TRITAHALA KARA, KAPPOOR VILLAGE, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT..** - **6 MUHAMMED, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMAD KUTTY, KUNDUPARAMBIL HOUSE, THRITHALA KARA, PATTITHAR VILLAGE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** - **7 AJEESH, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, THOTTAMVALAPPIL HOUSE, THRITHALA KARA, PATTITHAR VILLAGE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** - **8 SHIBIN, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.SHRIDHARAN, THRITHALA KARA, PATTITHARA VILLAGE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR SRI.V.K.SREEJITH** CRL.MC:4673/2019 2 ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:** |**1**|**THE STATE OF KERALA,**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,**| ||**HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.**| |**2**|**THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,**| ||**PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION, PRUMBAVOOR,**| ||**ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 542.**| |**3**|**SAJITH, AGED 22 YEARS**| ||**S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, THONDIPARAMBIL HOUSE,**| ||**NEAR AWH COLLEGE, KUMBIDI, OTTAPALAM TALUK,**| ||**PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 001.**| ## **BY ADV. SRI.R.SREEHARI** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SRI. RAMESH CHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** CRL.MC:4673/2019 3 ## **ORDER** This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 2. The petitioners herein are the accused in Crime No.782 of 2019 registered at the Perumbavoor Police Station under Sections 365, 323 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC. They seek to quash the aforesaid proceedings on the ground of settlement. 2. From the prosecution records, it is discernible that the allegation is that on 2.4.2019 at about 3.45 pm, the petitioners in furtherance of their common intention, wrongfully confined the 3[rd] respondent and assaulted him causing injuries. 3. Heard Sri.Anoop V. Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.R.Sreehari, the learned counsel appearing for the 3[rd] respondent, and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Sri.R.Sreehari submitted that after much deliberations, the victim has resolved his disputes and differences with the petitioners and he has now decided that the continuance of criminal proceedings is an unwanted exercise. He refers to the affidavit filed by the victim before this Court and asserts that he has no objection in bringing the prosecution proceedings to a premature termination. CRL.MC:4673/2019 4 5. Sri. Anoop V. Nair urged that in view of the compromise arrived at between the victim 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, on instructions, submitted that the investigating officer has reported that the petitioners are not involved in any other crimes. It is further submitted that the State has no serious objection in quashing the proceedings against them in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties. 7. I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the records. 8. The factors that are to be borne while exercising the 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 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** CRL.MC:4673/2019 5 **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 of settlement, CRL.MC:4673/2019 6 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. It was also held that the mere fact that the police have incorporated a grave offence in the FIR or the final report would not be a deterrent if the records reveal that the ingredients of the offence are not made out. 9. In the light of the above principles, I have perused the prosecution records. The injuries allegedly inflicted by the petitioners cannot be said to be grave and serious having ingredients of extreme mental depravity. I have also noted the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that the statement of the victim has been recorded by the investigating officer and that he has asserted that it is not in his best interest that the prosecution proceedings continue. Having considered the case in hand on the touchstone of the aforementioned parameters, I am of the view 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 CRL.MC:4673/2019 7 to continue, it would not serve any purpose as the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. It can only result in putting the victim 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. In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-I FIR in Crime No.782 of 2019 of the Perumbavoor Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners are quashed. **Sd/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE** krj CRL.MC:4673/2019 8 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.782/2019 ON THE FILE OF JFCM-I, PERUMBAVOOR.** **ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT ENTERED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT SHOWING THAT THE MATTER IS SETTLED, DATED 17/06/2019.** **ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT ENTERED BY THE PETITIONERS SHOWING THAT THE MATTER IS SETTLED, DATED 17/06/2019.**