High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-09-27Quashed

BASHEER and others v. STATE OF KERALA

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C. No. 5736 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date: 2016-09-27
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is allowed. Annexure-A2 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners in CC 327/2007 are quashed.
Final Disposition: Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

BASHEER
ABDUL SHUKKOOR
HANEEFA
MOOSA
AZIM MUSTHAFA
P.H. ASHARAF
P. H SHAJAHAN
V.A SALIM
AZKAR ALI
NOUSHAD

Respondents

State of Kerala
Hashim Haji
Abdul Sathar
Yoosuf
Salam
Minsar

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SRI.GEO PAUL
• SRI.SANU MATHEW
• SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN
• P. SRI.C.R.PRAMOD
• SRI.S.ASHOK KUMAR
• SRI.LENIN P. SUKUMARAN
• SRI.K.S.SREENATH
• KUM.LAYA MARY JOSEPH

Counsels for Respondents

• SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE
• SRI.AMJAD ALI

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court of Kerala, in a criminal miscellaneous case, challenges the order in CC 327/2007 arising from Crime No. 377/2007 at the Ernakulam Central Police Station. The petition is filed under Section 482 CrPC by accused Nos. 1 to 10, who rely on the precedent in Gian Singh v State of Punjab and related cases to seek quashment of the prosecution. The core allegation dates from 9 March 2007, when the petitioners, alleging to be members of an unlawful assembly, allegedly assaulted respondents 2 to 6 inside Madeena Masjid, generating charges under IPC sections 143, 147, 448, 323, 427, read with 149. The respondents 2 to 6 and the State have appeared; affidavits of respondents 2–6 assert that the disputes have been amicably resolved. The cross case, Crime No. 378 of 2007, presents another version of the incident. The Public Prosecutor advocated sending the matter back to the trial court for relief, arguing the court should not exercise its discretionary power to quash. The judge, after careful consideration, found that the offence was personal and did not threaten public peace, and that settlement would promote peace and harmony. Citing Gian Singh and the subsequent judgments, the High Court held that the impugned proceedings should be quashed, and CC No. 327/2007 and related proceedings against the petitioners are quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the CrPCSections 143, 147, 448, 323, 427 read with Section 149 of the IPC

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that the impugned proceedings should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC in light of the Supreme Court's cautions in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and subsequent cases. They emphasise that the offence is personal, does not affect public peace or tranquility, and that amicable settlement between the parties will promote peace and harmony. The affidavits from respondents 2–6 attesting to dispute resolution, together with the absence of criminal antecedents, support using the Court's inherent power to quash when continued prosecution serves no public purpose and may cause oppression. The cross-complaint (Crime No. 378/2007) and the desire for finality further motivate the Court to exercise restraint and grant relief through quashing the proceedings.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor urged maintaining the case and sending the matter back to the trial court for relief, arguing the Court should not exercise its discretionary power to quash. Counsel for respondents 2–6 acknowledged the amicable settlement but stressed the need to preserve justice and not prematurely foreclose potential accountability, noting the cross-case and the possibility of conflicting versions. The State emphasized the public interest and peaceful resolution while reserving rights to pursue appropriate remedies if required.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 (4) KLT 108	Positive	Cited as the controlling precedent permitting quashing of proceedings in cases where there is a settlement and the offences are personal, aligning with peaceable resolution goals.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr.	2014 (6) SCC 466	Positive	Referenced as part of the set of guidelines recognizing quashing on settlement and amicable resolution in suitable cases.
Yogendra Yadav and others v State of Jharkhand	2014 (9) SCC 653	Positive	Cited for supportive guidance on balancing personal settlement with public interest in quashing decisions.

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 BASHEER and others v. STATE OF KERALA 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** **TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/5TH ASWINA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 5736 of 2016 ()** ## **---------------------------** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 327/2007 of J.M.F.C.-II, ERNAKULAM DATED CRIME NO. 377/2007 OF ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 10.: ------------------------------** ## **1. BASHEER** **AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. MOIDU MAULAVI, KOROTH HOUSE, VISHNUMANGALAM KARA, KALLACHI VILLAGE, KOZHIKODU, DISTRICT, ERNAKULAM.** **2. ABDUL SHUKKOOR, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. MOIDEEN KUTTY HAJI, KANNANTHARA HOUSE, KUMBALAM VILLAGE, KUMBALAM ERNAKULAM.** ## **3. HANEEFA** **AGED 66 YEARS, S/O. PAREEKUTTY, UZHINJOORIL HOUSE, VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM.** ## **4. MOOSA,** **AGED 66 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL REHMAN, MUKKADA HOUSE, MUDICAKAL, MUDICKAL KARA, MARAMPILLY VILLAGE, PERUMBAVOOR.** **CONTD.....** **:2:** **5. AZIM MUSTHAFA, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. MUSTHAFA, ILAMTHOTTAM HOUSE, CHAKKINGAL ROAD, PALARIVATTOM KARA, EDAPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM.** **6. P.H. ASHARAF, AGED 50YEARES, S/O. HASSAN HAJI, KALLOOPRAMBIL HOUSE, NR. BSNL, DESHABHIMANI ROAD, KALOOR.** **7. P. H SHAJAHAN, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. HASSAN HAJI, KALLOOPRAMBIL HOUSE, NR. BSNL, DESHABHIMANI ROAD, KALOOR** **8. V.A SALIM, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. AHMED, VELLETH VADUTHALA KARA, AROOKUTTY, NOW RESIDING KALLOOPARAMBIL HOUSE, DESHABHIMANI ROAD, KALLOOR KARA.** ## **9. AZKAR ALI,** **AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. HANEEFA, UZHIVELIL HOUSE, VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM.** ## **10. NOUSHAD,** **AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL KHADER, PUTHUVELIL HOUSE, THAMMANAM DESOM, MAY FIRST ROAD, POONITHURA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM.** **BY ADVS.SRI.GEO PAUL SRI.SANU MATHEW SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P. SRI.C.R.PRAMOD SRI.S.ASHOK KUMAR. SRI.LENIN P. SUKUMARAN SRI.K.S.SREENATH KUM.LAYA MARY JOSEPH** **CONTD...** **:3:** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/CW 1 TO 4 & STATE.: ---------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA** **REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR, CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM, PIN- 682031.** ## **2. HASHIM HAJI,** **AGED 78 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL RAHMAN, BONALSA HOUSE, ARANGATH CROSS ROAD, PULLEPADY, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, PIN- 682035.** **3. ABDUL SATHAR,** - **AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. ABOOBACKER, PUTHUVANA HOUSE, ELOOR KARA, KADUMGALLOOR VILLAGE,** ## **4. YOOSUF,** **AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. ALAVI, PAPPARATH HOUSE, BEHIND MANGALAM TOWER, KANIYAMPILLY ROAD, CHAKKARAPARAMBU KARA, EDAPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE.** **5. SALAM,** **AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. IBRAHIM, PARAKKATU HOUSE, NEAR CITY GYMNASIUM, CP UMMER ROAD, PULLEPADY, KOCHI-35.** **6. MINSAR,** **AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL KHADER, VATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANJUMMAL KARA ELOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM.** **R2-6 BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE** **R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.AMJAD ALI** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-09-2016, ALONG WITH CRMC. 5751/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **CONTD...** **:4:** ## **Crl.MC.No. 5736 of 2016 () ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-----------------------** **ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 377/2007 OF CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM.** **ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT/CHARGE IN CC. NO. 327/2007 ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, ERNAKULAM.** **ANNEXURE A3 AFFIDAVIT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **ANNEXURE A4 AFFIDAVIT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A5 AFFIDAVIT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A6 AFFIDAVIT BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A7 AFFIDAVIT BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL -----------------------** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **SKS** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 5736 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 27[th] September, 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **ORDER** - 1.This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 10 in C.C.No.327 of 2007 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Ernakulam, banking on the ratio of the Judgment rendered by the Apex Court in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab** ( 2012 (4) KLT 108) and a series of other cases which include **Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr. (2014) 6 SCC 466)** and **Yogendra Yadav and others V State of Jharkhand** (2014 (9) SCC 653 ) with a prayer to quash the above proceeding. - 2.The prosecution allegation is that on 9.3.2007 at about - 11.30 a.m the petitioners formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with active knowledge that they are the members of an unlawful assembly and with intend to Crl.M.C. No. 5736 of 2016 2 execute their common object entered into the Madeena Masjid and thereafter assaulted the respondents 2 to 6 causing injuries. Based on intimation received from the Krishna Nursing Home, Ernakulam Crime No.377 of 2007 was registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 448, 323, 427 read with Section 149 of the IPC. Respondents 2 to 6 are the injured witnesses. - 3.It is submitted at the Bar that the disputes have been amicably resolved. Respondents 2 to 6 have entered appearance through counsel who submitted that Annexures A3 to A7 affidavits are sworn to by the said respondents to the effect that the disputes have been amicably resolved. It is also submitted that a cross case was registered against the respondents as Crime No. 378 of 2007 in which a different version of the incident is alleged. - 4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, respondents - 2 to 6 and the learned Public Prosecutor. Crl.M.C. No. 5736 of 2016 3 - 5.The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioners be relegated to the trial court for securing reliefs and also that this Court will not be justified in exercising its discretionary powers. However, it is submitted that the petitioners are not persons with criminal antecedents. - 6.I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made across the bar and I have also gone through the materials on record. - 7.It appears to me 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 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 Crl.M.C. No. 5736 of 2016 4 parties to live in peace and harmony. - 8.I am of the view that this Court is well justified in quashing the impugned proceedings as the instant case falls within the matrix of guidelines issued by the Apex Court in **Gian Singh** ( Supra ) and the other cases referred to above. In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-A2 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioenrs now pending as C.C.No. 327 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Ernakulam are quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE** SKS //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE