Crl.M.C. No. 7535 of 2016, In the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date: 2016-11-23
Court Decision / Holding: The court, applying the principles from Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, held that quashing under Section 482 CrPC is justified given the lack of grave offense, the amicable settlement, and the ends of justice and avoidance of abuse of process. Accordingly, the petition was allowed and all proceedings in CC No. 1792/2015 and the final report were quashed.
Final Disposition: Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Abdu Manaf A.G. S/O Mohammed
Muhammed Jasim S/O Ashraf A.K.
Semeer K. S/O Koyali
Shamshad V.P.M. S/O Shamshudeen C.
Arshak A.G. S/O Abdul Kareem A.G.
Muhammed Rashid K. S/O Musthafa T.P.

Respondents

The State of Kerala through the Station House Officer Chandera Police Station, Kasaragod District represented by the Public Prosecutor High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Abdul Samad A.G.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. T. Madhu
• Sri. Shahid Azeez

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. G. Sangeetha R
• Sri. A. Amjad Ali (Public Prosecutor)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings in CC No. 1792/2015 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hosdurg, arising from FIR Crime No. 442/2015 of Chandera Police Station. Accused Nos. 1–6 are alleged, under IPC Sections 143, 147, 148, 342, 324, 323 read with Section 149, to have formed an unlawful assembly on 06.06.2015 at around 11:20 p.m. and to have restrained and assaulted the de facto complainant. The petition argues that the dispute between the parties is purely personal and that the dispute has been amicably resolved; continuing the criminal proceedings would undermine peace and harmony and constitute abuse of process. The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, opposed the invocation of Section 482, though noted that there are no other pending cases against the petitioners. The court cites Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab to emphasize that, in appropriate cases, amicable settlements can justify quashing if ends of justice are served and abuse of process is avoided. The court concludes that the offences are not grave, the settlement promotes peace, and continuing prosecution would be a waste of time with slim prospects of conviction. Consequently, the petition is allowed and all proceedings against the petitioners in CC No. 1792/2015 are quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)IPC Sections 143, 147, 148, 342, 324, 323 read with 149

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

ends of justice
abuse of process of law
amicable settlement between victim and wrongdoer can justify quashing

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that the dispute is personal and has been amicably settled; quashing the proceedings would avoid abuse of process and serve ends of justice. They rely on settled principles that amicable settlements can justify termination of criminal proceedings where continuation would be unfair or wasteful and threaten public peace.

Contentions of Respondents

The State, via Public Prosecutor, opposed habitual use of Section 482 to quash; while noting no other cases against petitioners, it argued that such inherent powers should not be invoked indiscriminately and that continued prosecution might be warranted to uphold public peace and order.

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 there is an amicable settlement between victim and offender, if it serves ends of justice and avoids abuse of process.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	2014 (6) SCC 466	Positive	Reiterates the need to consider ends of justice and prevent abuse of process when settlement exists; supports quashing in settled cases.

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 WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1938 Crl.MC.No. 7535 of 2016 () --------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 1792/2015 of J.M.F.C.-I,HOSDRUG DATED CRIME NO. 442/2015 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION , KASARGOD PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1-6: ------------------------- 1. ABDU MANAF.A.G S/O.MOHAMMED, AGED 21 YEARS RESIDING AT A.G.HOUSE, KOYANKARA, VADAKUMBADU, NORTH THRIKKARIPUR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. MUHAMMED JASIM S/O.ASHRAF A.K., AGED 20 YEARS RESIDING AT SAINABHA MANZIL, KOYANKARA, VADAKUMBADU, NORTH THRIKKARIPUR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3. SEMEER K. S/O.KOYALI, AGED 22 YEARS, RESIDING AT SOUDATH MANZIL, KOYANKARA, VADAKUMBADU, NORTH THRIKKARIPUR VILLAGE KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 4. SHAMSHAD V.P.M. S/O.SHAMSHUDEEN C., AGED 22 YEARS RESIDING AT DARULSALAM, KOYANKARA, VADAKUMBADU, NORTH THRIKKARIPUR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 5. ARSHAK A.G. S/O.ABDUL KAREEM A.G., AGED 21 YEARS, RESIDING AT A.G.COTTAGE, KOYANKARA, VADAKUMBADU, NORTH THRIKKARIPUR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 6. MUHAMMED RASHID K. S/O.MUSTHAFA T.P., AGED 21 YEARS RESIDING AT RABIYA MAHAL, KOYANKARA, VADAKUMBADU, NORTH THRIKKARIPUR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.T.MADHU SRI.SHAHID AZEEZ RESPONDENT(S)/STATE: -------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031. CONTD... :2: Crl.MC.No. 7535 of 2016 () --------------------------- 2. ABDUL SAMAD A.G. AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.AHAMMED K.C. RESIDING AT A.G.HOUSE, VADAKUMBADU, NORTH THRIKKARIPUR VILLAGE KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671317.. R2 BY ADV. SMT.G.SANGEETHA R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CONTD.. :3: Crl.MC.No. 7535 of 2016 () --------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- ANNEXURE - A1 THE TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO 442/2015 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE-A2 THE TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO 442/2015 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE-A3 THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 25-10-2016 SWORN IN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE-A4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF EVIDENCE IN CRIME NO 442/2015 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL ----------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE SKS ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No. 7535 of 2016** ## **----------------------------------------Dated this the 23[rd] 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 petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 to 6 in C.C. No. 1792 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Hosdurg. In the aforesaid case, they stand indicted under Sections 143, 147, 148, 342, 324, 323 r/w Section 149 of the IPC. The 2[nd] respondent is the de facto complainant. - 3.The prosecution allegation is that on 06.06.2015 at - 11.20 p.m, the petitioners herein formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object wrongfully restrained the 2[nd] respondent and Crl.M.C. No. 7535 of 2016 2 thereafter assaulted him causing injuries. - 4.Heard the submissions advanced. - 5.The learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. Attention of this Court is invited to the affidavit filed by him to buttress his submission. It is urged that the dispute is purely personal in nature and would not affect public peace or tranquillity. Summing up it is prayed that the criminal proceedings be terminated to promote peace and harmony. - 6.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 petitioners. Crl.M.C. No. 7535 of 2016 3 ## 7.I have considered the submissions . ## 8.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.”_ ## 9.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. 7535 of 2016 4 ## _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_ 10.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 .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. Crl.M.C. No. 7535 of 2016 5 11.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. In the result, this petition will stand allowed. AnnexureA2 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.C.No. 1792 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -I, Hosdurg are quashed. **JUDGE** SKS //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE