High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-10-21Quashed; proceedings in SC 465/2015 quashed.

Chanth Ibrahimkutty and others v. State of Kerala and AbooBakkar

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC No. 6068 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
Judgment Date: 2016-10-21
Court Decision / Holding: This petition is allowed; all further proceedings against the petitioners in SC 465/2015, on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Manjeri, are quashed.
Final Disposition: Quashed; proceedings in SC 465/2015 quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Chanth Ibrahimkutty
Kareem
Yakoob
Ameen
Faizal
Hamsa
Aneesh
Mohammed Rafeeque
Haneefa
Shahid
Abdul Haq
Subair
Nishad
Noufal
Koyamon

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam; 2nd Respondent: AbooBakkar

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K. P. Sudheer

Counsels for Respondents

• Arun Mathew Vadakkan
• T. R. Renjith

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court sitting, adjudicated by Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V, concerns a petition under Section 482 CrPC filed by multiple accused seeking to quash the ongoing proceedings in SC 465/2015 before the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Manjeri. The petition arises from a 13.02.2010 incident wherein the petitioners allegedly trespassed into the 2nd respondent’s house and assaulted him and others, linked to a civil dispute over a pathway that spawned subsequent criminal cases (crime no. 382/2010). The accused are charged under several IPC sections (148, 143, 147, 294(b), 323, 324, 308, 342, 447, 506) read with Section 149 IPC. The petition hinges on a settlement between the parties (Annexure A5) and an affidavit (Annexure A6) indicating absence of acrimony and a desire to withdraw pending civil and criminal disputes. Citing Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012, and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2014, the court reiterates that 482 powers extend to cases with a civil flavour when private settlements warrant quashing, and that such power is not bound by mere technicalities if justice and peace require it. The court also notes Rajesh Kamath J. v. Mohana Kurup (2016) reinforcing this approach. After evaluating the circumstances, the judge finds the offence not grave and the settlement beneficial to community harmony, and accordingly allows the petition, quashing SC 465/2015 proceedings against the petitioners.

Provisions of Law Cited

CrPC Section 482IPC Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 308, 342, 447, 506 read with 149 IPC

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argued that a longstanding civil dispute over access and related civil litigation (O.S. 117 of 2010) had escalated into criminal cases. A settlement (Annexure-A5) between the parties, supplemented by Annexure-A6 (affidavit), indicates mutual withdrawal of pending disputes and absence of acrimony. They contended that continuing criminal proceedings would disturb peace and harmony, undermining the community’s welfare. Given the civil flavour of the dispute and the comprehensive settlement, invoking a Section 482 CrPC quashing is appropriate to prevent fruitless prosecution and to preserve public order in line with Supreme Court guidance.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents supported quashing in light of the settlement, noting no acrimony between parties and the absence of a significant societal impact from the alleged offences. The Public Prosecutor and counsel for the 2nd respondent emphasized that quashing would promote peace and harmony. They argued that the High Court’s power under 482 CrPC, as clarified in Gian Singh and subsequent cases, allows quashing where settlements resolve the entire dispute, provided there is no threat to public order or society.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another	2012 (10) SCC 303	Positive	Three-judge bench held that High Courts may exercise 482 CrPC quashing powers beyond its scope under 320 CrPC, including where private settlements exist; supports quashing in civil-flavour disputes.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	2014 (6) SCC 466	Positive	Provided guidelines for exercise of 482 CrPC in quashing cases, shaping the court’s approach to settled disputes and public interest considerations.
Rajesh Kamath J. and Others v. Mohana Kurup and Others	AIR 2016 SC 2452	Positive	Recent reiteration of quashing approach in civil-flavour disputes, reinforcing settlement-based quashing as compatible with 482 CrPC in appropriate 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 Chanth Ibrahimkutty and others v. State of Kerala and AbooBakkar 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 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/29TH ASWINA, 1938 Crl.MC.No. 6068 of 2016 () --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 465/2015 of ADDL. D.C. & SESSIONS COURT - II, MANJERI DATED CRIME NO. 382/2010 OF TIRURANGADI POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:-: ----------------------- 1. CHANTH IBRAHIMKUTTY, S/O.ISMAIL, AGED 41 YEARS, CHANTHU HOUSE, POTTAMMAL, P.O.PANTHARANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. KAREEM, S/O.ISMAIL, AGED 36 YEARS, CHANTHU HOUSE, POTTAMMAL, P.O.PANTHARANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. YAKOOB, S/O.SAIDALAVI AGED 37 YEARS, MACHINGAL HOUSE, PANTHARANGADI POST, THRIKKULAM, PALLIPPADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 306. 4. AMEEN, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMEDALI, POOCHENGAL KUNNATH HOUSE, PALATHINGAL, PANTHARANGADI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. FAIZAL, S/O.KUNHAMMAD, AGED 32 YEARS, MACHINGAL HOUSE, PANTHARANGADI POST, THRIKKULAM, PALLIPPADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 306. 6. HAMSA, S/O.SAIDALAVI, AGED 32 YEARS, MACHINGAL HOUSE, PALATHINGAL-PALLIPPADI, PANTHARANGADI POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 306. CONTD... :2: Crl.MC.No. 6068 of 2016 () --------------------------- 7. ANEESH, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, AGED 31 YEARS, PALAMADATHIL HOUSE, PANTHARANGADI POST, THRIKKULAM, PALLIPPADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 306. 8. MOHAMMED RAFEEQUE, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.ABDU SAMAD, MACHINGAL HOUSE, PALATHINGAL, PANTHARANGADI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 9. HANEEFA, S/O.KUTTASSERY ALASSAN, AGED 43 YEARS, PALATHINGAL, PANTHARANGADI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 10. SHAHID, S/O.KUTTASSERY ALASSAN, AGED 28 YEARS, PALATHINGAL, PANTHARANGADI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 11. ABDUL HAQ, S/O.ABDU RAHIMAN, AGED 28 YEARS, THOTTUMUGHATH AVIYIL HOUSE, PALATHINGAL, PANTHARANGADI POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 306. 12. SUBAIR, S/O.KUNHIMUHAMMED, AGED 34 YEARS, MACHINGAL HOUSE, PALATHINGAL-PALLIPPADI, PANTHARANGADI POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 306. 13. NISHAD, S/O.BEERAN, AGED 41 YEARS, MOOZHIKKAL VEEDU, PANTHARANGADI POST, PALLIPPADI - THRIKKULAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 306. 14. NOUFAL, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.MOOZHIKKAL SAINABHA, PALATHINGAL, PANTHARANGADI POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 306. 15. KOYAMON, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.KUNHIMOHAMMED, THAZHETHAKATHARAKKAL, PALATHINGAL, PANTHARANGADI POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 306. CONTD... :3: Crl.MC.No. 6068 of 2016 () --------------------------BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:-: -------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRURANGADI POLICE STATION, TIRURANGADI - 676 306, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. ABOOBAKKAR, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMAD, POOCHENGAL KUNNATH, PANTHARANGADI POST, THRIKKULAM, PALLIPPADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 306. R2 BY ADV. SRI.ARUN MATHEW VADAKKAN R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. T.R.RENJITH THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CONTD... :4: Crl.MC.No. 6068 of 2016 () --------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- ANNEXURE A1. CERTIFIED COPY OF PRIVATE COMPLAINT DATED 03.05.2010 AND NUMBERED AS CMP NO.1508/2010 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRTE'S COURT, PARAPPANANGADI. ANNEXURE A2. CERTIFIED COPY OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORT DATED 17.05.2010 IN CRIME NO.382/2010 OF TIRURANGADI POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A3. CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT DATED 25.08.2010 IN CRIME NO.382/2010 OF TIRURANGADI POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A4. TRUE COPY OF PLAINT DATED 12.01.2010 IN O.S.NO.17/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PARAPPANANGADI. ANNEXURE A5. TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 24.09.2015 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PARTIES. ANNEXURE A6. AFFIDAVIT DATED 22.08.2016 EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL ----------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE SKS **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J. ---------------------------------Crl. M.C. No. 6068 of 2016 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 21[st] day of October, 2016** ## **O R D E R** - 1.This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Code') has been preferred by the petitioners herein for quashing the proceedings pending against him as S.C. No. 465 of 2015 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge-II, Manjeri. In the said case, they stand indicted for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294 (b), 323, 324, 308, 342, 447 and 506 - (i) r/w Section 149 of the IPC. - 2.The prosecution allegation is that, on 13.02.2010 at 12.30 pm, the petitioners wrongfully trespassed into the house of the 2[nd] respondent and thereafter assaulted him and some other inmates and thus committed the offence. - 3.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the 2[nd] respondent and the learned Public **Crl. M.C. No. 6068 of 2016** -2- Prosecutor. It is submitted that there was a dispute concerning a pathway which led to the institution of O.S.No.117 of 2010 before the Court of the Munsiff, Parappanangadi. As an aftermath to the civil proceedings, several criminal cases happened to be registered against the rival parties. Finally, at the instance of mediators and well-wishers, all pending disputes were settled and the parties are living in peace and harmony. It is urged that the pendency of the criminal proceedings will fuel fresh disputes and is likely to disturb the amity between the parties. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the 2[nd] respondent relies on Annexure-A5 settlement agreement wherein both the parties have agreed that all pending civil and criminal disputes will be withdrawn. 4.Learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent refers to Annexure-A6 affidavit sworn to by him and submits that no acrimony exists between the parties. According to the **Crl. M.C. No. 6068 of 2016** -3- learned counsel, the 2[nd] respondent has no objection in quashing the proceedings. - 5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, this Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings. - 6.The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions has submitted that the disputes have been resolved and in view of Annexure-A6, the State has no serious objections in quashing the proceedings as it would bring about peace and harmony between the rival parties. - 7.In **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another** [2012 (10)SCC 303], the Apex Court has crystalised the position in respect of the powers vested in the High Court under S.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to quash criminal proceedings. It was held that the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is not limited to quashing proceedings within the ambit **Crl. M.C. No. 6068 of 2016** -4- and scope of Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The three - Judge Bench in the above case, clearly expounded, that quashing of criminal proceedings under S.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, could also be based on settlements between private parties, and could also on a compromise between the offender and the victim. Only that, the above power did not extend to crimes against the society. It is also relevant to mention, that the jurisdiction vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for quashing criminal proceedings, was held to be exercisable in criminal cases having an overwhelming and predominatingly civil flavour, particularly offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership, or such like transactions. In all such cases, the parties should have resolved their entire dispute by themselves, mutually. Further, guidelines were issued by the Apex Court in **Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab** [2014 (6) SCC 466] and **Crl. M.C. No. 6068 of 2016** -5- recently in **Rajesh Kamath J. and Others v. Mohana Kurup and Others** [AIR 2016 SC 2452]. 8.I have considered the rival submissions and I have gone through the materials on record. 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. More over, when the respondent No.2 has settled the matter, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and the continuation of the criminal case against the petitioners would be a futile exercise. Further more, settlement will augur well for the interest for the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony. 9.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. **Crl. M.C. No. 6068 of 2016** -6- In the result, this petition will stand allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in S.C. No. 465 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Manjeri are quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE** SKS //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE