High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-05-27Petition allowed; final report and all further ...

Basheer s/o Khalid and Others v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C.No.2869 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
Judgment Date: 2016-05-27
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is allowed. Annexure A2 final report and all further proceedings in S.C.No.277 of 2013 before the Additional District and Sessions Judge-I, Manjeri, are quashed against the petitioners.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; final report and all further proceedings in SC No. 277 of 2013 quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Basheer s/o Khalid
Sathar s/o Mohammed
Issoodheen s/o Mohammed

Respondents

The State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala (representing Sub-Inspector, Tanur Police Station)
Hydrose s/o Mohammed
Hamdan s/o Hydrose

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Arun Mathew Vadakkan

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Rajesh Vijayan, Public Prosecutor
• Sri K. P. Sudheer

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Misc. Case (Crl.M.C. No. 2869 of 2016) filed in the Kerala High Court under section 482 CrPC seeking to quash criminal proceedings arising from Tanur Police Station Crime No. 551/2008, now pending before the Additional District and Sessions Judge-I, Manjeri as SC No. 277/2013. The petitioners—Basheer, Sathar and Issoodheen—were accused in offences under sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 341, 323, 324 and 506(ii) read with section 149 IPC. The respondents include the State represented by the Public Prosecutor, and respondents 2 and 3, Hydrose and Hamdan, respectively. The petition asserts that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and wish to live in harmony, making continued prosecution unwarranted and oppressive. The Public Prosecutor states the State has no objection to acting on affidavits indicating settlement and that the petitioners lack criminal antecedents. The court recalls that the inherent power under section 482 CrPC is wide and should be exercised to secure ends of justice and prevent abuse of process, particularly where the dispute is private and the compromise is genuine. Citing Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, and Yogendra Yadav, the court notes that quashing may be appropriate where settlements exist between the parties and conviction prospects are remote. On these facts, the court allows the petition, quashing the final report and all further proceedings in SC No. 277 of 2013.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)Section 143 IPCSection 147 IPCSection 148 IPCSection 448 IPCSection 341 IPCSection 323 IPCSection 324 IPCSection 506(ii) read with Section 149 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Inherent powers of High Court under section 482 CrPC are wide and plenary
Ends of justice
Prevention of abuse of the process of any court
Private or personal nature of offences suitability for quashing upon settlement
Amicable resolution between parties can terminate criminal proceedings in appropriate cases

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that the dispute arose from private differences and has been amicably settled with mutual consent. The compromise is voluntary and genuine, with no coercion or pressure. They submit that continued prosecution would be oppressive, and with no realistic chance of conviction, quashing would serve the ends of justice and promote peace and harmony between the parties. Citing established precedents on settlement in criminal disputes, they request quashing of the final report and all further proceedings.

Contentions of Respondents

The State, through the Public Prosecutor, submits that there is no objection to acting on the affidavits of settlement (Annexures A3 and A4) as such settlement would foster peace and harmony. The respondents also note that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents. Thus, the State supports the exercise of inherent power to quash where the dispute is private and resolved by the parties, provided conviction is unlikely and the compromise is genuine.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 (10) SCC 303	Positive	High Court can take note of amicable resolution between victim and offender to end criminal proceedings in appropriate cases.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	2014 (6) SCC 466	Positive	Reiterates the principle that amicable settlements can lead to quashing where appropriate.
Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another	2014 (9) SCC 653	Positive	Affirms the stance that settlements can justify quashing in suitable cases.

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 s/o Khalid 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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** ## **FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2016/6TH JYAISHTA, 1938** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2869 of 2016 ()** **--------------------------SC.NO. 277/2013 OF ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT-I, MANJERI CRIME NO. 551/2008 OF TANUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT** **---------------------** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3 :** **-------------------------------------------------** **1. BASHEER S/O.KHALID, AGED 40 YEARS, PALLIMANTEPURAKKAL HOUSE, NIRAMARUTHUR P.O., UNNIYAL, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **2. SATHAR S/O.MOHAMMED AGED 36 YEARS, VEROOR HOUSE, THEVARKADAPPURAM NIRAMARUTHUR P.O., UNNIYAL, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **3. ISSOODHEEN S/O.MOHAMMED, AGED 28 YEARS, VEROOR HOUSE, THEVARKADAPPURAM, NIRAMARUTHUR P.O., UNNIYAL, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.ARUN MATHEW VADAKKAN** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE, DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & INJURED :** **-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TANUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676 302.** **2. HYDROSE S/O.MOHAMMED, AGED 53 YEARS, PAKKAR KADAVATH HOUSE, THEVAR KADAPPURAM, NIRAMARUTHUR, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676109.** **...2/-** **Crl.MC.No. 2869 of 2016 () -2-** **3. HAMDAN S/O.HYDROSE, AGED 25 YEARS, PAKKAR KADAVATH HOUSE, THEVAR KADAPPURAM, NIRAMARUTHUR, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676109.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAJESH VIJAYAN R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Mn** **...3/-** **Crl.MC.No. 2869 of 2016 () -------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :** **----------------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE AI CERTIFIED COPY OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORT DATED 09.12.2008 IN CRIME NO. 551/2008 OF TANUR POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT DATED 23.12.2008 IN CRIME NO. 551/2008 OF TANUR POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A3 AFFIDAVIT DATED 07.05.2016 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A4 AFFIDAVIT DATED 07.05.2016 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES : NIL ------------------------------------------------------** **//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE** ## **Mn** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 2869 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 27[th] May, 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **ORDER** This petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) with a prayer to quash the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner. 2. Crime No.551 of 2008 of Tanur Police Station was registered at the instance of second respondent against the petitioners herein under sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 341, 323, 324 and 506(ii) read with Section 149 of the IPC. The third respondent who is the son of the second respondent was a minor at the time of the incident. 3. After completion of the investigation, final police report was laid before the jurisdictional Magistrate and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and is now pending trial as S.C.No.277 of 2013 on the files of the Additional District and Sessions Judge-I, Manjeri. It is Crl.M.C. No.2869 of 2016 -2- submitted that during the pendency of the case, parties have decided to resolve their disputes and to live in harmony. 4. Referring to Annexures A3 and A4 affidavits sworn to by respondents 2 and 3, it is submitted by the counsel that the matter has been settled. In the light of the settlement no purpose will be served as the prospects of conviction is non existent, is the submission of the learned counsel. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that the State has no objection in acting on Annexures A3 and A4 affidavits as it would promote peace and harmony. It is also submitted that the petitioners are not persons with any criminal antecedents. 6. It is borne out from the submissions and the affidavit filed by the respondents 2 and 3, that the parties have amicably settled their disputes with their free will and without any kind of pressure, influence or coercion. The Crl.M.C. No.2869 of 2016 -3- compromise, it is felt, is voluntarily and genuine and can be acted upon. The law with regard to the settlement of criminal disputes on the strength of an amicable resolution of the disputes between the parties is no more _res integra_ . 7. **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. This view was reiterated in **Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014** **(6) SCC 466) and Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another (2014 (9) SCC 653).** 8. It was held that the inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. It was held that certain categories of cases involving heinous and serious offences of Crl.M.C. No.2869 of 2016 -4- mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute as those offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. But those cases where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and those in which the parties have resolved their entire dispute could fittingly be quashed by this Court taking into account the compromise between the offender and victim. In such cases the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused and the _de facto_ complainant to great oppression and prejudice. 9. After having scrutinized the submissions it is felt that it is unfair and contrary to the interests of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings. It would only tantamount to abuse of process of law to subject the parties to the ordeal of a protracted criminal proceeding despite the settlement and compromise between the victim and Crl.M.C. No.2869 of 2016 -5- wrongdoer. Settlement will augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the petition can be allowed. In the result , the petition is allowed and Annexure A2 final report and all further proceedings in S.C.No.277 of 2013 on the files of the Additional District and Sessions Judge-I, Manjeri against the petitioners shall stand quashed. sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE** kp/-28.5.16