High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeCrl.M.C allowed; FIR and final report quashed a...

Ayishafida and others v State of Kerala and others

Case / Petition Number:CRL.MC NO. 6621 OF 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C.S. Dias
Judgment Date
2024-03-12
Court Decision / Holding
The Crl.M.C is allowed by quashing Annexure-A1 FIR and Annexure-A2 Final Report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.1564/2021 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad, as against the petitioners.
Final Disposition
Crl.M.C allowed; FIR and final report quashed and all further proceedings in CC No.1564/2021 quashed as against the petitioners (Ayishafida, Shamrin, Faseena Parveen, Shifana).

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • AYISHAFIDA
  • SHAMRIN
  • FASEENA PARVEEN
  • SHIFANA

Respondents

  • State of Kerala
  • The Sub Inspector of Police, Guruvayoor Police Station
  • Anjana Unnikrishnan
  • Jayaprasad

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Adv. P. Sanjay
  • • Adv. Rahul Raj P.
  • • Adv. Kiran Narayanan

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Public Prosecutor
  • • Adv. Jayadeep Sajan

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a criminal travel of proceedings under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR and the final report in a case arising from Crime No.1151/2021 of Guruvayoor Police Station, Thrissur, registered against four petitioners (petitioners 1–4) for alleged offences under Sections 341 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 4 of the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1998. The petition, CRL.MC No.6621/2023, seeks quashing Annexure-A1 FIR and Annexure-A2 final report and all further proceedings in CC No.1564/2021 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chavakkad. The petitioners are third-year degree students of ICA College and allege that the matter has been amicably settled. Respondents include the State (through Public Prosecutor) and the Guruvayoor Police, with impleaded third party Anjana Unnikrishnan and Jayaprasad as per an order dated 12.03.2024. Annexure-A3 affidavits sworn by the third respondent state there are no subsisting grievances and no objection to quashing. The Investigating Officer corroborates the settlement. Citing Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Prabatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, the court holds that where an amicable settlement exists and the offences are not serious, quashing is warranted to secure ends of justice. After considering the materials, the court quashes the FIR, final report, and all further proceedings against the petitioners, observing no public interest, remote chances of conviction, and societal harmony benefits.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Sections 341 & 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860Section 4 of the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1998

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Ends of justice (as a guiding principle for exercise of inherent power under Section 482 CrPC)
  • Amicable settlement as a basis to quash criminal proceedings in non-serious offences
  • Promotion of social harmony and avoidance of wastage of judicial time

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that the subject matter of the dispute has been amicably settled with the third respondent, who has sworn Annexure-A3 in support, stating no subsisting grievance and no objection to quashing. The Investigating Officer has authenticated the settlement. Since the alleged offences are not serious, with no public interest involved and a remote chance of conviction, continuing proceedings would be a waste of judicial time. The petitioners thus seek quashing under Section 482 CrPC in the interests of justice and social harmony.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor supported a cautious approach, but the third respondent's affidavit (Annexure-A3) and lack of subsisting grievance are central to the court’s evaluation. The arguments underscore the need to balance legitimate public interest with the benefits of settlement in non-serious offences; however, the explicit accord of the parties to settlement weighs in favor of quashing as per the Supreme Court authorities cited.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab2012 (10) SCC 303PositiveCited to support quashing where amicable settlement exists and offences are not serious, aligning with ends of justice.
Prabatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur v. State of Gujarat and another(2017) 9 SCC 641PositiveCited for the principle that amicable settlements and non-serious offences can warrant quashing to secure ends of justice.

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 Ayishafida 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 C.S.DIAS ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1945 ``` ## `CRL.MC NO. 6621 OF 2023` ``` CRIME NO.1151/21 OF GURUVAYOOR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC NO.1564 OF 2021 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,CHAVAKKAD ``` ## `PETITIONERS:` ``` 1AYISHAFIDA AGED 20 YEARS D/O FASAL, MANAYATH (H), KOTTAPADI PILLAKAD, GURUVAYOOR THRISSUR, PIN – 680505 2SHAMRIN AGED 20 YEARS D/O SHAMSUDHEEN, AMANNUR (H), ERAMANGALAM P.O, PERUMBADAPPU MALAPPURAM, PIN – 679587 3FASEENA PARVEEN AGED 19 YEARS D/O BABU, AMBALATH (H), EYYAL P.O, THRISSUR, PIN – 680501 4SHIFANA AGED 20 YEARS D/O MUHAMMED, KADANGATHIL (H), ERAMANGALAM P.O, THRISSUR, PIN – 679587 ``` ``` BY ADVS.P.SANJAY RAHUL RAJ P. KIRAN NARAYANAN ``` ## `RESPONDENTS:` ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031 2THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE GURUVAYOOR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680102 ``` _Crl.M.C..No.6621/2023_ _-:2:-_ - `3 ANJANA UNNIKRISHNAN AGED 20 YEARS D/O UNNIKRISHNAN (KOTHOTTIL HOUSE CHOWANNOOR THRISSU, PIN – 680517` - `*4 JAYAPRASAD, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O M.S. DAMODARAN NAIR, GAYATHRI HOUSE LENIN NAGAR, POOKUNNAM, THRISSUR, PIN 680002 *(IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 12.3.2024 IN CRL.MA NO.1/2024)` ``` BY ADV JAYADEEP SAJAN ``` ## `OTHER PRESENT:` ``` PP SMT SHYNIMOLE V O ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` _Crl.M.C..No.6621/2023_ _-:3:-_ Dated this the 12[th] day of March, 2024 ## **O R D E R** The petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, to quash Annexure-A1 First Information Report[FIR] and Annexure-A2 Final Report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.1564/2021 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad. 2. The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.1151/2021 of Guruvayur Police Station, Thrissur, registered against them at the instance of the third respondent, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 341 & 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 and Section 4 of Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1998. 3. The gist of the prosecution is that: the accused Nos. 1 to 4 who are third year decree students at ICA College in Thozhiyoor, had attempted to impose _Crl.M.C..No.6621/2023_ _-:4:-_ themselves as seniors in front of junior students and on 27.10.2021, at around 1.30 p.m., when the second witness was approaching the College, the accused attempted to stop her and rag her. The second witness/ third respondent’s right hand got torn and the accused attempted to tug on it. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 4. Heard; Sri. P. Sanjay, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt. Shynimol V.O., the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 and Sri. Jayadeep Sajan, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the subject matter in dispute between the petitioners and the third respondent has been amicably settled out of court. The third respondent has executed Annexure-A3 affidavit stating that she has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners and she _Crl.M.C..No.6621/2023_ _-:5:-_ has no objection in the proceedings in the above crime being quashed. Hence, the petition may be allowed. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the Investigating Officer has ascertained and reported that the subject matter in dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the third respondent has voluntarily executed Annexure-A3 affidavit. 7. The learned counsel for the third respondent also submitted that the third respondent has no subsisting grievance as against the petitioners and she has voluntarily executed Annexure-A3 affidavit. The said submission is recorded. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab** [2012 (10) SCC 303] and **Prabatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another** [(2017) 9 SCC 641] has held that in the facts and circumstances _Crl.M.C..No.6621/2023_ _-:6:-_ of a case and to secure the ends of justice, where the High Court is satisfied that an amicable settlement has been arrived at between the parties and the offence is not serious in nature involving mental depravity, criminal proceedings may be quashed. 9. On a consideration of the facts, the rival submission made across the Bar, and the materials on record, especially after going through Annexure-A3 affidavit sworn in by the third respondent, which has been found to be genuine and bona fide by the Investigating Officer, I am convinced and satisfied that this is a fit case to exercise the inherent power of this Court, particularly since the alleged offences are not serious in nature, no public interest in involved, the chances of conviction is remote, the continuation of the proceeding would only be wastage of judicial time and the settlement would augur harmony in society. Hence, I am inclined to allow the petition. _Crl.M.C..No.6621/2023_ _-:7:-_ In the result, the Crl.M.C is allowed by quashing Annexure-A1 First Information Report[FIR] and Annexure-A2 Final Report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.1564/2021 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad, as against the petitioners. The Crl.M.C is ordered accordingly. Sd/- ## **C.S.DIAS,JUDGE** DST/12.03.24 //True copy// P.A. To Judge _Crl.M.C..No.6621/2023_ _-:8:-_ ## `APPENDIX` ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1THE TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO. 1151/2021 OF GURUVAYOOR POLICE STATION STATION ``` ``` ANNEXURE A2THE CERTIFIED COPY OF C.C. NO. 1564/2021 FINAL CHARGE SHEET PENDING BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST-CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, CHAVAKKAD ``` ``` ANNEXURE A3THE SWORN AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 ANNEXURE A4TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 06.03.2024 SWORN BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ```