Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed

Crl.M.C. No. 3202 of 2016

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C. No.3202 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
Judgment Date
2016-06-28
Court Decision / Holding
The petition is allowed; all further proceedings in S.C. No. 348 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-III, Manjeri, shall stand quashed.
Final Disposition
Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Adeeb Muhammed
  • Shahis T.P.
  • Shafi T.P.
  • Sahad
  • Abdul Haseeb

Respondents

  • State of Kerala, represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
  • The Sub Inspector of Police, Thenippalam Police Station, Malappuram District
  • Mustafa K., S/o. Mammad
  • Abdul Nazar, S/o. Moideen Kutty

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • K.M. Firoz
  • • M. Shajna
  • • Ummul Fida
  • • E.C. Ahamed Fazil

Counsels for Respondents

  • • S. Kannan
  • • Smt. S. Simy

Case Synopsis & Summary

This criminal miscellaneous case before the Kerala High Court concerns five accused persons (petitioners) who had faced trial in SC No. 348 of 2012 arising from Crime No. 257 of 2010 of Thenippalam Police Station for offences including 143, 147, 148, 341, 324 and 308 read with 149 IPC. The petitioners moved under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the proceedings, relying on the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and subsequent cases, which permit quashing in the context of settled disputes where continuing prosecution serves no useful purpose. Respondents 3 and 4 (Mustafa K. and Abdul Nazar) filed affidavits stating they pardoned the petitioners and have no objection to termination, while Respondents 1 and 2 (State represented by Public Prosecutor and the Sub-Inspector) supported a settlement that would restore peace. The Court observed the offense is personal and does not affect public peace, and that quashing would promote peace and harmony, avoiding oppression or prejudice to the parties. It held that the case falls within the framework of Gian Singh and related rulings enabling exercise of inherent powers de hors Section 320 CrPC for settle­ment outcomes. Consequently, the petition was allowed and all further proceedings in SC No. 348 of 2012 were quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of CrPCSection 320 CrPCSections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324 and 308 read with 149 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Inherent powers of High Court under Section 482 CrPC de hors Section 320 CrPC
  • Ends of justice doctrine in quashing criminal proceedings in settled disputes
  • Out-of-court settlement as a permissible factor for quashing in the interests of peace
  • Gian Singh guidelines on exercise of power to quash in light of settlements

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that the High Court’s inherent power under Section 482 CrPC can be invoked de hors Section 320 CrPC in cases where a genuine out-of-court settlement has been reached, and continuing the prosecution would be futile and oppressive. They rely on the Gian Singh principle and subsequent cases to assert that quashing would serve ends of justice and restore peace between parties, especially since the alleged offences are personal and do not threaten public peace.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents (3 and 4) support termination of the proceedings in the interest of peace, having pardoned the petitioners and filed affidavits to that effect; the State Prosecutor and the investigating officer acknowledge that the dispute has a personal nature and that quashing would avoid ongoing prejudice and be conducive to societal harmony.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab2012 (4) KLT 108PositivePrinciple established by a three-judge bench allowing quashing of proceedings in light of an out-of-court settlement under the inherent powers of CrPC Section 482.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr.2014 SCC 466PositiveCited as part of the line of authorities supporting quashing where ends of justice require settlement to prevail.
Yogendra Yadav and others v State of Jharkhand2014 (9) SCC 653PositiveCited as supportive authority for quashing in the context of negotiated settlements and 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 Crl.M.C. No. 3202 of 2016 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 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/7TH ASHADHA, 1938** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3202 of 2016 ()** ## **--------------------------SC. NO.348/2012 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT - III, MANJERI. CRIME NO. 257/2010 OF THENHIPALAM POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** ## **....** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:** ## **--------------------------------------** **1. ADEEB MUHAMMED, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED, MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, CHENAKKALANGADI, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM-673 636.** **2. SHAHIS T.P.,** - **AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. KUTTYAMU, THRIKANOOR PALATHOTATHIL HOUSE, CHENAKKALANGADI, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM-673 636.** **3. SHAFI T.P.,** - **AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.IMBICHI KOYA, THAVAKKAL HOUSE, CHENAKKALANGADI, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM-673 636.** **4. SAHAD,** - **AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. SAIDALAVI, KONNOLA HOUSE, CHENAKKALANGADI, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM-673 636.** **5. ABDUL HASEEB,** - **AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. HASSAN KUTTY, KADANGADIPALAM HOUSE, CHENAKKALANGADI, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM-673 636.** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.M.FIROZ, SMT.M.SHAJNA, SMT.UMMUL FIDA, SRI.E.C.AHAMED FAZIL.** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3202 of 2016** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE-COMPLAINANT:** **-----------------------------------------------------------** **1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.** **2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THENIPPALAM POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 636.** **3. MUSTAFA K., S/O. MAMMAD, AGED 42 YEARS, MUTTETHODI HOUSE, CHENAKKALANGADI, THENIPALAM AMSOM AND DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM-673 636.** **4. ABDUL NAZAR, S/O. MOIDEEN KUTTY, AGED 40 YEARS, MEPPINALIL HOUSE, CHENAKKALANGADI, THENIPALAM AMSOM AND DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM-673 636.** **R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE. R3 & R4 BY ADVS. SRI.S.KANNAN, SMT.S.SIMY.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** rs. ## **Crl.MC.No. 3202 of 2016** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-** **A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET SUBMITTED BY THENIPPALAM POLICE IN CRIME NO. 257 OF 2010. A2 AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. A3 AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** rs. ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J ------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.3202 of 2016** **-------------------------------------Dated this the 28[th] day of June, 2016** ## **O R D E R** - 1.The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 to 5 in S.C.No.348 of 2012 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-III, Manjeri. The said case had arisen from Crime No.257 of 2010 of Thenippalam Police Station registered at the instance of the third respondent herein alleging commission of offence punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324 and 308 read with 149 of the IPC. 2.They have preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure banking on the ratio of the Judgment rendered by the Three – Judge Bench of the Apex Court in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab** ( 2012 (4) KLT 108) and a series of other cases which Crl.M.C.3202/2016 2 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. The sole ground is that the Apex Court in the above judgments have delineated the circumstances and the cases in which inherent powers under Section 482 can be invoked _de hors_ section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for recognizing out of court settlement for the purpose of quashing criminal proceedings. - 3.The prosecution allegation as per the final report is that on 13.8.2010 at 1.35 PM, the petitioners assaulted respondents 3 and 4 with dangerous weapons causing injuries. - 4.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for Crl.M.C.3202/2016 3 respondents 3 and 4 and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5.It is submitted that the parties have reached an out of court settlement and there is no acrimony between them at present. They have agreed to start afresh and to live in peace and harmony. The pendency of the criminal proceeding will hinder their cordial relationship in no small measure. To bring on record the settlement, respondents 3 and 4 have filed affidavits wherein they state in unequivocal terms that they have pardoned the petitioners and reiterates that they have no objection in terminating the proceedings. 6.The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that the petitioners are not persons with criminal antecedents. Crl.M.C.3202/2016 4 - 7.I have given my anxious consideration 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 view that this Court is well justified in quashing the impugned proceedings as the instant Crl.M.C.3202/2016 5 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. All further proceedings against the petitioners in S.C.No.348 of 2012 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-III, Manjeri, shall stand quashed. **Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE** vps