Ashmil Shah C.P. and others v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/23RD POUSHA, 1938** ## **Crl.MC.No. 9003 of 2016 ()** ## **--------------------------SC. NO.206/2016 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (FAST TRACK-I), MANJERI. CRIME NO. 914/2015 OF KOTTAKKAL POLICE STATION.** ## **......** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 6:** **------------------------------------------------** **1. ASHMIL SHAH C.P., SON OF HASHIM C.P, AGED 20 YEARS, CHERAPARAMBIL HOUSE, NORTH ANNARA, TIRUR. P.O., MALAPPURAM.** **2. MUHAMMED ASHIQ ALAVI. P.,** - **SON OF ALAVIKUTTY, AGED 21 YEARS, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PARANGIMOOCHIKKAL, PARAPPANANGADI. P.O., MALAPPURAM.** **3. ASHIQ ISMAIL,** - **SON OF ABDUL GAFOOR, AGED 19 YEARS, KOMBATHIYIL HOUSE, SANGEETHA ROAD, KOTTAKKAL. P.O., MALAPPURAM.** **4. ADARSH. P,** - **SON OF MANOJ, AGED 20 YEARS, PAYYAPONTHA HOUSE, MEENADATHUR. P.O., TANALOOR, MALAPPURAM.** **5. NIKHIL. P.,** - **SON OF DAMODARAN, AGED 19 YEARS, PULICKAL HOUSE, MUTHUR, TIRUR. P.O., MALAPPURAM.** **6. MUHAMMED ASLAM V.K.,** - **SON OF UMMER, AGED 22 YEARS, VETTAMKADAVATHU HOUSE, PATAHAMPADU, NIRAMARUTHUR. P.O., MALAPPURAM.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.P.K.NIJOY.** ## **Crl.MC.No. 9003 of 2016** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:** **-------------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **2. MUHAMMED AJMAL SHAH, SON OF MUJEEB, AGED 18 YEARS, PUTHUKKUDI HOUSE, CHANKUVETTIKUNDU, KOTTAKKAL. P.O., MALAPPURAM.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.E.C. BINEESH. R2 BY ADV. SRI.MAHESH V.MENON** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** rs. ## **Crl.MC.No. 9003 of 2016** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-** **ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.914 OF 2015 DATED 19.09.2015.** **ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.914 OF 2015. ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 13.09.2016 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** rs. ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J.** ## **-------------------------------------** Crl.M.C No. 9003 of 2016 -------------------------------------Dated this the 13[th] day of January, 2017 ## **ORDER** - 1.This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' ). - 2.The Petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 to 6 in S.C.No.206 of 2016 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track-I), Manjeri involving offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 506 r/w 149 IPC and Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. - 3.The prosecution allegation is that on 18/9/2015, petitioners in furtherance of their common object, formed themselves into an unlawfully assembly and after wrongfully restraining the second respondent assaulted him causing bodily injuries. - 4.Heard the submissions advanced. Crl.M.C. No.9003 of 2016 -2- - 5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved and the parties are living in peace and harmony. - 6.The learned appearing for the 2[nd] respondent submits referring to Annexures-B affidavit that the disputes have been amicably resolved and the parties have decided to give a quietus to all their pending disputes. It is submitted that they are living in peace and harmony and the continuance of criminal proceedings against the petitioners is a futile exercise as they have no subsisting grievance. - 7.The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions has expressed his reservations in the matter of quashing the proceedings on the basis of settlement. It is submitted that the invocation of powers under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is not warranted. However, it is submitted that no other cases are reported against the petitioners. Crl.M.C. No.9003 of 2016 -3- 8.The position with regard to quashing of proceedings on the basis of compromise between the parties is by now well settled. In **Gian singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303** Apex Court has laid down 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. It was observed as follows : _“61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”_ 9.The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court ## in **Narinder singh v. State of Punjab. (2014) 6 SCC** **466,** the pertinent observations which are as under: Crl.M.C. No.9003 of 2016 -4- ## _XXXXXXXXXXXX_ _29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:_ _(i) ends of justice, or_ _(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives._ _xxxxxxx_ _xxxxxxx_ 10.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. It is felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and secure the ends of justice. Even otherwise, persisting with the prosecution would be nothing but a waste of time as the prospects of conviction would be bleak. Crl.M.C. No.9003 of 2016 -5- 11.Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of 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- AI FIR, Annexure A2 Final Report and all further proceedings in S.C.No.206 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track-I), Manjeri pending against the petitioners are quashed. **Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN JUDGE** Scl/13.01.2017