Ashique Ali K. and others v. State of Kerala and Vishnu

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V.
Judgment Date: 2016-06-24
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No.516 of 2015 of Mannarkkad Police Station are quashed.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; quashing of all further proceedings in Crime No.516/2015

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Ashique Ali K.
Sabeeb K.K.
Ajmanul Mubashir K.
Mohammed Sammas T.P.
Sanjeed Shan K.
Mohammed Yasser K.K.
Shibil
Sajadali V.K.
Abul Nasheem P.

Respondents

State of Kerala
Vishnu

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri P. Jayaram

Counsels for Respondents

• A. Haroon Rasheed
• Smt. Sareena George

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a criminal miscellaneous case (Crl.M.C. No. 3174 of 2016) decided by the High Court of Kerala, sitting as a single judge bench. The petition, filed by nine accused persons (Ashique Ali K., Sabeeb K.K., Ajmanul Mubashir K., Mohammed Sammas T.P., Sanjeed Shan K., Mohammed Yasser KK, Shibil, Sajadali V.K., Abul Nasheem P.), challenges Crime No. 516/2015 of Mannarkkad Police Station, alleging offences under IPC sections 143, 147, 294(b), 308, 323, 325, 341 read with 149, and Section 4 of the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1998. The incident concerns an alleged assault of the second respondent (Vishnu), a first-year B.Com student, outside the MES Kalady College gates on 14 May 2015, by the petitioners and others. The petition emphasizes that the disagreement was a minor scuffle, there is no ongoing acrimony, and the matter has been amicably settled, with Vishnu filing an affidavit to erase the bitterness and start afresh. The Public Prosecutor notes the petitioners have no criminal antecedents. The learned judge, relying on the settled position in Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, holds that quashing is appropriate where ends of justice are served, especially given the settlement and the remote likelihood of conviction. The court therefore quashes all further proceedings in Crime No.516/2015.

Provisions of Law Cited

IPC sections 143, 147, 294(b), 308, 323, 325, 341 read with Section 149Section 4 of the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1998

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ends of justice
Inherent jurisdiction of High Courts to quash criminal proceedings
Quashing when settlement between parties is possible and leads to peace (as per Gian Singh)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argued that the offence under Section 4 of the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1998 would not be attracted in the facts of this case. The incident occurred outside the MES College in Kalady between students of different colleges. It was a minor scuffle, and there is a pending criminal prosecution that jeopardizes the petitioners' future. There is a settlement between the parties, supported by an affidavit from Vishnu, expressing willingness to erase the bitter past and live in peace. The petition contends that there is no public peace disturbance, no criminal antecedents, and that quashing will serve the ends of justice.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent's detailed submissions are not expressly recorded in the document. The Public Prosecutor notes the petitioners have no criminal antecedents. The court proceeds to consider the equitable, ends-of-justice framework and the settlement, rather than contested merits, to determine the appropriate course.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 (4) KLT 108	Positive	Cited as guiding precedent for invoking the High Court's inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings in the interests of justice, especially when there is a settlement and no likelihood of conviction.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr.	2014 (6) SCC 466	Positive	Cited alongside Gian Singh to support the ends of justice and inherent jurisdiction principles in allowing quashing where appropriate.

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 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/3RD ASHADHA, 1938** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3174 of 2016 () ---------------------------** ## **CRIME NO. 516/2015 OF MANNARKKAD POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:** **---------------------** ## **1. ASHIQUE ALI K.** **AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.HYDER ALI, KONGATH HOUSE, ALANALLUR P.O., MANNARAKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** ## **2. SABEEB K.K.** **AGED 19 YEARS, S/O.SAIDALAVI, KALAKKANDAN HOUSE, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** ## **3. AJMANUL MUBASHIR K.** **AGED 19 YEARS, S/O.ASHRAF, KOUNATH HOUSE, NATTUKAL P.O., MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** ## **4. MOHAMMED SAMMAS T.P.** **AGED 18 YEARS, S/O.MUSTHAFFA, PARAMBILPEEDIKA HOUSE, KARIPPAMANNA, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** ## **5. SANJEED SHAN K.** **AGED 19 YEARS, S/O.SIDDIQUE, KARUKULALAVAN HOUSE, ALANALLUR P.O., MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.,** ## **6. MOHAMMED YASSER K.K.** **AGED 19 YERS, S/O.ABDUL NASSER, KATTIKUNNAM HOUSE, MANNARKKAD COLLEGE P.O., KUMARAMPUTHUR, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** ## **7. SHIBIL** **AGED 20 YERS, S/O.SHARAFUDEEN, KARIMBALAYIL HOUSE, VAZHEMPURAM P.O., KARAKURUSSI, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** ## **8. SAJADALI V.K.** **AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL RAHSEED, VALLIKADAN HOUSE, MANNARKKAD COLLEGE P.O., MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** ## **9. ABUL NASHEEM P.** - **AGED 18 YEAS, S/O.KASSIM, PARANGADEN HOUSE, KARINKALLATHANNI, THAZHEKODE P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYARAM** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3174 of 2016 ()** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** ## **--------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA** **REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** ## **2. VISHNU** **AGED 20 YERS, S/O.VASU, VELLATTUTHODY HOUSE, KAITHACHIRA, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 582.** **R2 BY ADV. SRI.A.HAROON RASHEED R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SAREENA GEORGE** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3174 of 2016 ()** **---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** - **-----------------------** - **A1. COPY OF THE FIR AND FIS IN CRIME NO.516/2015 OF MANNARAKKAD POLICE STATION** - **A2. AFFIDVIT DATED 30.4.2016 SWORN TO AND EXECUTED BY 2ND RESPNDENT.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL** - **-----------------------** **//TRUE COPY//** **PA TO JUDGE** **sab** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V., J.** ------------------------------------------ **Crl.M.C.No.3174 of 2016** -----------------------------------------Dated this the 24[th] day of June, 2016 ## **O R D E R ~~~~~~~** 1.The petitioners herein are accused Nos. 1 to 9 in Crime No.516 of 2015 of Mannarkkad Police Station. The aforesaid crime was registered at the instance of the 2[nd] respondent herein alleging commission of offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 294(b), 308, 323, 325 and 341 read with Section 149 of the IPC and under Section 4 of the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1998. - 2.The prosecution allegation is that the 2[nd] respondent herein was a first year B.Com student at the Mannarkkad Co-operative College. On 14.5.2015, he along with his friends went to the MES, Kallady College and the petitioners along with two others, who could be identified by sight, wrongfully restrained him and assaulted him **Crl.M.C.No.3174/2016** **-2-** outside the gate of the said college. - 3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The 2[nd] respondent has also entered appearance through counsel. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the offence under Section 4 of the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1998 will not be attracted in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. It is pointed out that the petitioners were students of the MES college and the respondent No.2 was a B.Com student in the Mannarkkad Co-operative College. Only a minor scuffle had occurred between these students and due to the pendency of the criminal prosecution, their future is put in peril. It is also pointed out that the matter has been settled amicably between the parties and in view of the same the continuance of the prosecution is unwarranted. There is no acrimony between the parties at present and they are living in peace and harmony. To **Crl.M.C.No.3174/2016** **-3-** bring on record the settlement, the 2[nd] respondent has filed an affidavit in which he affirms in unmistakable terms his decision to erase the bitter incidents of the past and to start afresh. - 5.The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that the petitioners are not persons with criminal antecedents. - 6.I have given my anxious considerations to the submissions made across the bar and I have also gone through the materials on record . It does not appear to me that the offence under the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1998 is made out in the facts and circumstances. Incident occurred outside the MES College , Kalady and the 2[nd] respondent is a student of a different college. - 7.It appears that the offence is entirely personal in nature and do not affect public peace or tranquility . It is also felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace. In a case such as the instant **Crl.M.C.No.3174/2016** **-4-** 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_ complainant 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. - 8.I am of the considered opinion that this is one of those exceptional cases where prayer for invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction can be justifiably invoked to serve the ends of justice as the case falls within the matrix of guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab ( 2012 (4) KLT 108) and Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr. (2014) 6 SCC 466)** and other cases. **Crl.M.C.No.3174/2016** **-5-** In the result, this petition is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No.516 of 2015 of Mannarkkad Police Station, shall stand quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V. JUDGE** Ps/25/6/16