High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-06-20Quashed

Crl.M.C. No. 3129 of 2016 (Kerala High Court, Ernakulam)

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C. No. 3129 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
Judgment Date: 2016-06-20
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is allowed; all further proceedings against the petitioners in S.C.No.807 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-II, Paravur shall stand quashed. Subsequently, vide a modification dated 27-09-2016, the scope was clarified: all further proceedings against the 1st petitioner pending as CP No.32 of 2015 before the JMFC Aluva, and against petitioners 2 and 3 pending as S.C.No.807 of 2015 before the ASJ North Paravur shall stand quashed.
Final Disposition: Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Aslam
Shamjad @ Faisal
Thajudeen

Respondents

The State of Kerala, through the Station House Officer, Elamakkara Police Station, Ernakulam District, represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam-682031
Muhammed Riyas, S/O Alikutty, aged 43 years, resident of Kottarathil House, Chuttupadukara, Edapally North Village, Ernakulam District-682012
Abdul Rahim, S/O Alikutty, aged 59 years, resident of Kottarathil House, Punnakkal, Elamakkara Kara, Edappally South Village, Ernakulam District-682012

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. T. Madhu

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor Sri. Rajesh Vijayan
• SMT. G. Sangeetha

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case (Crl.M.C. No. 3129 of 2016) arising from S.C. No. 807 of 2015, on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-II, Paravur, concerning Crime No. 230/2014 at Elamakkara Police Station. Accused 1–3 (Aslam, Shamjad alias Faisal, and Thajudeen) sought to quash the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC on the ground that the dispute with the de facto complainant has been settled. The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant and the 3rd respondent the injured witness. Annexures show copies of the FIR, final report, affidavits, and evidence memo. The prosecution alleged kidnapping and assault on the de facto complainant in 2014, with offences under IPC sections 342, 323, 364A and 294(b) read with 34, and also under the Kerala Money Lenders Act (Section 17) and the Prevention of Exorbitant Interest Act (Sections 3 and 4). The petition contends a quietus has been struck between rival parties and seeks quashing to restore peace. The Public Prosecutor confirms no criminal antecedents for the petitioners. The High Court, invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and citing Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, allows the petition as an exceptional case to serve ends of justice. Subsequently, a modification dated 27-09-2016 clarifies the scope of quashing across CP 32/2015 and SC 807/2015.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 CrPCSections 342, 323, 364A and 294(b) read with Section 34 IPCSection 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders ActSections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Exorbitant Interest Act, 2013

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Inherent jurisdiction of High Courts under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings in the interest of justice
Guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012 (4) KLT 108)
Guidelines laid down by Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr. (2014) 6 SCC 466)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petition asserts a negotiated settlement between the parties. During the pendency, the rival sides decided to bury past disputes; affidavits confirm their decision to erase the incidents and live in peace. They submit the offence is personal in nature, and continuing prosecution would cause oppression without serving public interest. The applicants rely on the settled state of affairs and the ends of justice under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction in exceptional circumstances, following Gian Singh and Narinder Singh.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents, with the Public Prosecutor’s participation, submit that there are no criminal antecedents on the petitioners, and the matter largely concerns a private dispute resolved by the parties. They contend the case should be governed by established guidelines on quashing where settlement exists, and emphasize that the proceedings are otherwise for offences with potential impact on the individuals involved; the settlement and lack of public interest militate in favor of quashing under protective legal principles.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 (4) KLT 108	Positive	Cited as a core authority for invoking the court's inherent jurisdiction to quash in exceptional cases where settlement exists and ends of justice so require.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr.	2014 6 SCC 466	Positive	Cited as authority supporting quashing in settlement-based scenarios.

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 Crl.M.C. No. 3129 of 2016 (Kerala High Court, Ernakulam) 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** **MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/30TH JYAISHTA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 3129 of 2016 () ---------------------------** **SC 807/2015 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT - II, PARAVUR. CRIME NO. 230/2014 OF ELAMAKKARA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **.......** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1-3:** - **-------------------------** **1. ASLAM, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O MUHAMMED, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO. 14/2168, NEAR CHAKKANATTU TEMPLE, THOPPUMPADY, THOPPUMPADY VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **2. SHAMJAD @ FAISAL, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O SALEEM, RESIDING AT INIKAL HOUSE, DESHABHIMANI ROAD, PALLURUTHI, THOPUMPADY VILLAGE, KOCHI-6, ERNAKULAM DIST.** **3. THAJUDEEN, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O IBRAHIMKUTTY, RESIDING AT KOLLAMPARAMBU HOUSE, KEDAMANAGALAM, KEDAMANAGALAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:** - **--------------------** - **1.THE STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ELAMAKKARA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.** - **2.MUHAMMED RIYAS, S/O ALIKUTTY, AGED 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOTTARATHIL HOUSE, SREENARAYANA BYE PASS LANE,CHUTTUPADUKARA, EDAPALLY NORTH VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682012.** **--2--** **--2--** **Crl.MC.No. 3129 of 2016 ()** **--------------------------** ## **3.ABDUL RAHIM, S/O ALIKUTTY,** **AGED 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOTTARATHIL HOUSE, PUNNAKKAL, ELAMAKKARA KARA, EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682012.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN R2 & R3 BY SMT.G.SANGEETHA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **mbr/** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3129 of 2016 () --------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)'ANNEXURES:** **-----------------------** **ANNEXURE A1 : THE TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.230/14 OF ELAMAKKARA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2 : THE TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO 230/14 OF ELAMAKKARA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A3 : THE AFFIDAVIT DT. 27/11/15 SWORN IN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A4 : THE AFFIDAVIT DT. 27/11/15 SWORN IN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **ANNEXURE A5 : THE TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE MEMO OF EVIDENCE IN CRIME NO. 230/14 OF ELAMAKKARA POLICE STATION.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL -----------------------//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.S. TO JUDGE** **mbr/** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 3129 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 20[th] June, 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **ORDER** 1. The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 to 3 in S.C.No.807 of 2015 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court - II, Paravur. They have preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') seeking to quash the proceedings on the ground that the matter has been settled with the de facto complainant. The 2[nd] respondent is the _de facto_ complainant and 3[rd] respondent is the injured witness in the case. - 2.The aforesaid case has arisen from Crime No.230 of 2014 registered inter alia for offences punishable under Sections 342, 323, 364(A) and 294(b) read with Section 34 of the IPC, Section 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Exorbitant Interest Act, 2013. Crl.M.C. No.3129/2016 -2- - 3.The prosecution allegation is that on 2.5.2014 at 2.35 pm the petitioners have kidnapped the 2[nd] respondent in a car and assaulted him. - 4.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, respondents 2 and 3 and the learned Public Prosecutor. - 5.It is submitted that during the pendency of the proceedings, the rival parties have decided to give a quietus to all their subsisting disputes. After much deliberations amongst themselves and at the interventions of persons who are respected by both parties, they have decided to bury the past and turn a new leaf. There is no acrimony between the parties at present and they are living in peace and harmony. To bring on record the settlement, respondents have filed separate affidavits in which they affirms in unmistakable terms their decision to erase the bitter incidents of the past and to start afresh. - 6.The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits Crl.M.C. No.3129/2016 -3- that the petitioners are not persons with criminal antecedents. - 7.I have given my anxious considerations to the submissions made across the bar and I have also gone through the materials on record. - 8.It appears 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 parties to live in peace and harmony. - 9.I am of the considered opinion that this is one of those exceptional cases where prayer for invocation of the Crl.M.C. No.3129/2016 -4- extraordinary inherent jurisdiction can be justifiably invoked to serve the ends of justice as the case falls within the matrix of guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab ( 2012 (4) KLT 108) and Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr. (2014) 6 SCC 466)** and other cases. In the result, this petition is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in S.C.No.807 of 2015 on the files of the learned Additional Sessions Court-II, Paravaur shall stand quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE** kp/-20.6.16 Crl.M.C. No.3129/2016 -5- The last sentence “ _All further proceedings against the petitioners in S.C.No.807 of 2015 on the files of the learned Additional Sessions Court-II, Paravaur shall stand quashed_ ” occurring in the operative portion of the order dated 20.6.2016 in Crl.M.C.No.3129/2016 is modified as “ _All further proceedings against the 1[st] petitioner now pending as C.P.No.32 of 2015 on the files of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court-II Aluva and the proceedings against petitioners 2 and 3 now pending as S.C.No.807 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-II, North Paravur shall stand quashed._ ” Vide order dated 27-09-2016 in Crl.M.A.No.9813/2016 in Crl.M.C.No.3129/2016. Sd/Registrar (Judicial)