Crl.M.C. No. 5697 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaragharivan V.
Judgment Date: 2016-11-01
Court Decision / Holding: This petition is allowed. All further proceedings against respondents 2 and 3 in S.C. No. 381 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-III, Mavelikkara and against the 4th respondent in C.P. No. 63 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kayamkulam are quashed.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; quashed all further proceedings against respondents 2-4.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Rahim

Respondents

The Sub Inspector of Police, Kayamkulam Police Station, Kayamkulum
Nissamudeen
Kochumon
Shaji

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P. B. Sahasranaman
• T. S. Harikumar

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor SRI.AMJAD ALI

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court Criminal Misc. Case (Crl.M.C. No. 5697 of 2016) filed by Rahim, the de facto complainant in Kayamkulam Crime No. 130 of 2014. The petitioner seeks to invoke the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash two parallel sets of proceedings arising from the same incident: S.C. No. 381 of 2016 before the Additional Sessions Court-III, Mavelikkara (against respondents 2 and 3) and C.P. No. 63 of 2016 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kayamkulam (against respondent 4). The prosecution alleges offences under Sections 341, 324, 325, 427 read with Section 34 IPC; the final report allegedly omitted Section 308 IPC. The petitioner contends that the dispute is purely personal, and settlement between the parties has brought peace; continued proceedings would impede reconciliation and public peace. The Public Prosecutor opposes quashing under 482, noting that such powers should be exercised sparingly in cases of settlement and in view of the lack of other cases against the respondents. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, the High Court concludes that where there is an amicable settlement and ends of justice justify it, invocation of 482 is warranted, and grants quashing of the proceedings against all cited respondents.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)Sections 341, 324, 325, 427 read with Section 34 IPCSection 308 IPC (mentioned)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ends of justice
Abuse of process of law
Amicable settlement/compromise as basis to quash

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Rahim argued that the dispute is purely personal and has been settled, with a restoration of peace; continuing criminal proceedings would impede the harmony between the parties and would not serve public interest. He contended that quashing the case under Section 482 is warranted to secure ends of justice and prevent abuse of process, given the amicable settlement between the victim and the accused.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about invoking extraordinary powers under Section 482 for quashing, emphasizing caution and the need for substantial justification; however, he noted that there were no other cases reported against respondents 2 to 4. He did not strongly oppose quashing if supported by the settlement and ends of justice principles.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	(2012) 10 SCC 303	Positive	Apex Court held that High Courts may quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases where amicable settlement exists and ends of justice require ending the proceedings.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	(2014) 6 SCC 466	Positive	Reiterated the guiding principles that ends of justice and avoidance of abuse of process may justify quashing in the context of settlements.

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 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/10TH KARTHIKA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 5697 of 2016** ## **-----------------------** **SC 381/2016 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT - III, MAVELIKKARA CP 63/2016 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAYAMKULAM CRIME NO. 130/2014 OF KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA** **--------------** ## **PETITIONER(S)/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT..:** ## **-----------------------------------** **RAHIM, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O HYDERKUTTY, FATHIMASIL, CHINGOLI MURI, CHINGOLI VILLAGE, CHINGOLI P.O, ALAPPUZHA 690 532.** **BY ADVS.SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND THE ACCUSED:** **------------------------------------** **1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION, KAYAMKULAM P.O, ALAPPUZHA 690 502.** **2. NISSAMUDEEN,** **AGED 40 YEARS, S/O JALALUDEEN, FATHIMANZIL, PANIPPURA THEKKATHIL, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM P.O, ALAPPUZHA 690 502.** **3. KOCHUMON, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O ABDUL SAMAD, MALIKKAL VEEDU, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM P.O, ALAPPUZHA 690 502.** **4. SHAJI,** - **AGED 45 YEARS, S/O MUHAMMEDU KUNJU, VADAKKETHOPPIL VEEDU, CHERAVALLY MURI, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM P.O, ALAPPUZHA 690 502.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **PJ** **Crl.MC.No. 5697 of 2016 -----------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES -----------------------** **ANNEXURE A1 THE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT SERVED ON THE 1ST ACCUSED BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAYAMKULAM ON HIS APPEARANCE. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE ORIGINAL COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE PETITIONER DATED 18-08-2016.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES -----------------------** **NIL.** **/ TRUE COPY /** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **PJ** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V., J.** ------------------------------------------ **Crl.M.C. No.5697 of 2016** -----------------------------------------Dated this the 1[st] day of November, 2016 ## **O R D E R ~~~~~~~~** - 1.This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') with a prayer to invoke the extraordinary inherent powers and to quash the pending criminal proceedings. - 2.The petitioner herein is the de facto complainant in Crime No.130 of 2014 of Kayamkulam Police Station. The said crime has been registered against the respondents 2 to 4 herein for offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 325, 427 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The prosecution allegation is that owing to previous enmity, on 16.1.2014 at 9.45 a.m., the respondents 2 to 4 wrongfully restrained the petitioner herein and thereafter assaulted him with Crl.M.C. No. 5697 of 2016 **-2-** weapons causing injuries. It is further alleged that the respondents 2 to 4 caused damages to the car of the petitioner herein resulting in loss of Rs.11,300/-. It appears that final report was laid omitting Section 308 of the IPC. Aggrieved by the above, a complaint was preferred by the petitioner which was forwarded to the police. After investigation, final report has been laid before the Jurisdictional court. In so far as the respondents 2 and 3 are concerned, the case is pending as S.C.No.381 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-III, Mavelikkara. In so far as the 4[th] respondent is concerned, the case is pending as C.P.No.63 of 2016 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kayamkulam. 3.Heard the submissions advanced. 4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits Crl.M.C. No. 5697 of 2016 **-3-** that he has no further grievance against the respondents 2 to 4. According to him, parties are now living in peace and harmony and the pendency of the criminal proceeding will impede their relationship. It is further urged that the dispute is purely personal in nature and will not affect public peace or tranquility. Summing up it is prayed that the criminal proceedings be terminated to promote peace and harmony. - 5.The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions has expressed his reservations in the matter of quashing the proceedings on the basis of settlement. It is submitted that the invocation of powers under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is not warranted. However, it is submitted that no other cases are reported against the respondents 2 to 4. - 6.I have considered the submissions . Crl.M.C. No. 5697 of 2016 **-4-** ## 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. It was observed as follows : _“61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”_ ## 8.The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court ## in **Narinder singh v. State of Punjab. (2014) 6 SCC** **466,** the pertinent observations which are as under: Crl.M.C. No. 5697 of 2016 **-5-** ## _XXXXXXXXXXXX_ _29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:_ _(i) ends of justice, or_ _(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. xxxxxxx_ _xxxxxxx_ 9.The offence committed by the respondents 2 to 4 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. It is felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and secure the ends of justice. Even otherwise, persisting with the prosecution would be nothing but a waste of time as the prospects of conviction would be bleak. 10.Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of Crl.M.C. No. 5697 of 2016 **-6-** 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. In the result, this petition will stand allowed. All further proceedings against the respondents 2 and 3 in S.C.No.381 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-III, Mavelikkara and against the 4[th] respondent in C.P.No.63 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kayamkulam are quashed. **Sd/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V. JUDGE** Ps/1/11/16