High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-04-30Crl.M.C allowed; final report and all further p...

Crl.MC No.1671 OF 2021 (H) - In the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No.1671 OF 2021 (H)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2021-04-30
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is allowed. Annexure-1 final report in Crime No.1088/2012 of the Pattambi Police Station, Palakkad, and all further proceedings in S.C 255/2014 of the Additional Sessions Court -IV, Palakkad, as against the petitioners are quashed.
Final Disposition: Crl.M.C allowed; final report and all further proceedings quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Ali Akbar
Sharafudeen
Abdul Azees
Nisamudeen
Muhammed Kutty
ShihabuDeen
Abdul Majeed
Insafudeen

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala - 682 031
Abdul Salam aged 52 years S/O. Muhammedali, Oravumthody House, Koora chipady, Vilayur P.O., Palakkad District - 679309
Muhammed Sabir S/O. Hamza, Oravumthody House, Koora chipady, Vilayur P.O., Palakkad District - 679309

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Sri.E.A.Haris

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Santhosh Peter, Sr. PP for R1
• Adv. Abraham K George for R2-3

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a criminal miscellaneous case under section 482 CrPC filed by eight accused challenging the final report in Crime No.1088/2012 and the subsequent proceedings in SC 255/2014 before the Additional Sessions Court, Palakkad. The petition alleges that on 22.10.2012, amid political animosity between the petitioners and respondents 2 and 3, the petitioners formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted the respondents with a wooden stick causing simple injuries; however, the matter was subsequently settled amicably through the intervention of well-wishers. The respondents filed affidavits stating they have no subsisting grievances and are not desirous of pursuing the matter. The State, after ascertaining genuineness of the settlement, indicated no serious objection. The court found that though the police initially included a charge under Section 308 IPC, the injuries were simple and the ingredients of Section 308 are not attracted; all other offences are compoundable under Section 320 IPC. Citing Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, the court recognized that where an amicable settlement exists and the offence is not serious, ends of justice demand that the proceedings be quashed. On that basis, the court allowed the petition, quashing the final report and all further proceedings against the petitioners.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 CrPCSections 143, 147, 148, 323, 326, 308 read with Section 149 IPCSection 320 IPC (compounding of offences)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ends of justice
Inherent power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC
Amicable settlement as a basis to quash criminal proceedings when offences are not serious (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab; Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants submit that amicable settlement between the petitioners and respondents 2 and 3 has been reached with the intervention of well-wishers. The prosecution had included a charge under Section 308 IPC, but the injuries were simple and not grave. Since the cited offences are compoundable under Section 320 IPC and there is no public interest involved, the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised to quash the final report in Crime No.1088/2012 and the proceedings in SC 255/2014 against the petitioners.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the affidavits of the de facto complainants (Annexures A2 and A3) state no subsisting grievance and a desire not to pursue the matter; the state does not oppose quashing in view of the settlement and no further pursuit of the case, given the absence of public interest and the minor nature of the alleged offence.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 (10) SCC 303	Positive	Cited as authority that where amicable settlement exists and the offence is not serious, ends of justice may justify quashing under the inherent powers of the High Court.
Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur v. State of Gujarat and another	(2017) 9 SCC 641	Positive	Cited for the principle that amicable settlements and non-serious offences can warrant quashing under inherent powers to secure 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.MC No.1671 OF 2021 (H) - In the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

**Crl.MC.No.1671 OF 2021** **1** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 10TH VAISAKHA, 1943** **Crl.MC.No.1671 OF 2021(H)** **AGAINST SC 255/2014 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT - IV, PALAKKAD** **CRIME NO.1088/2012 OF Pattambi Police Station , Palakkad** ## **PETITIONER/ ACCUSED 1 TO 8:** |**1**|**ALI AKBAR**| |---|---| ||**AGED 33 YEARS**| ||**S/O. MUHAMMED KUTTY, VELUTHEDATH MANNIL,**| ||**KOORACHIPADY, VILAYUR P. O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT**| ||**- 679309.**| |**2**|**SHARAFUDEEN**| ||**AGED 33 YEARS**| ||**S/O. BAPPUTTY, KORAKOTTIL VEEDU, KOORACHIPADY,**| ||**VILAYUR P. O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679309.**| |**3**|**ABDUL AZEES**| ||**AGED 42 YEARS**| ||**S/O. MUHAMMED KUTTY, KORAKOTTIL VEEDU,**| ||**KOORACHIPADY, VILAYUR P. O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT**| ||**- 670309.**| |**4**|**NISAMUDEEN**| ||**AGED 28 YEARS**| ||**S/O. FAREED MOULAVI, KORACHI VEEDU,**| ||**KOORACHIPADY, VILAYUR P. O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT**| ||**- 670309.**| |**5**|**MUHAMMED KUTTY**| ||**AGED 44 YEARS**| ||**S/O. UNNIN KUTTY - HAJI, VELUTHEDATH MANNIL,**| ||**KOORACHIPADY, VILAYUR P. O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT**| ||**- 670309.**| |**6**|**SHIHABUDEEN**| **Crl.MC.No.1671 OF 2021** **2** **AGED 34 YEARS S/O. SAIDUTTY, MUCHIKOOTTATHIL VEEDU, KOORACHIPADY, VILAYUR P. O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 670309.** - **7 ABDUL MAJEED AGED 36 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMED KUTTY, KORAKOTTIL VEEDU, KOORACHIPADY, VILAYUR P. O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 670309.** - **8 INSAFUDEEN AGED 34 YEARS S/O. BASHEER, KALACHAN VEEDU, KOORACHIPADY, VILAYUR P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 670309.** **BY ADV. SRI.E.A.HARIS** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & DE FACT COMPLAINANT:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA - 682 031.** - **2 ABDUL SALAM AGED 52 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMEDALI, ORAVUMTHODY HOUSE, KOORACHIPADY, VILAYUR P. O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679309.** - **3 MUHAMMED SABIR S/O. HAMSA, ORAVUMTHODY HOUSE, KOORACHIPADY, VILAYUR P. O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679309.** **R2-3 BY ADV. ABRAHAM K GEORGE** **SRI. SANTHOSH PETER, SR. PP FOR R1** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.MC.No.1671 OF 2021** **3** ## **C.S DIAS,J.** **--------------------------Crl.M.C No.1671 of 2021 ----------------------------Dated this the 30[th] April, 2021.** ## **ORDER** The petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.1088/2012 of the Pattambi Police Station, Palakkad registered against them for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 326 and 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Annexure-1 is the final report filed by the Police after investigation in SC 255/2014. 3. The prosecution allegation is that on 22.10.2012 due to the political animosity between the petitioners and the de facto complainants – the respondents 2 and 3, the petitioners formed an **Crl.MC.No.1671 OF 2021** ## **4** unlawful assembly and attacked the respondents 2 and 3 with wooden sticks and caused simple hurt to them. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1[st] respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3. Perused the records. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that with the intervention of well-wishers, the subject matter in dispute between the petitioners and the respondents 2 and 3 has been settled out of court. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 submitted that the respondents 2 and 3 have filed Annexures 2 and 3 affidavits, inter alia, stating that they have no subsisting grievance against the petitioners and are no longer desirous of **Crl.MC.No.1671 OF 2021** ## **5** pursuing the matter any further as against the petitioners. The learned counsel vouched for the signature of the respondents 2 and 3 in Annexure-A2 and 3 affidavits. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the Investigating Officer has ascertained the genuineness of the settlement and that the respondents 2 and 3 have admitted the execution of Annexure-2 and 3 affidavits. The State has no serious objection in the petition being allowed. 8. On an appreciation of the materials on record, it is found that the Police after investigation have incorporated the offence under Section 308 I.P.C as against the petitioners. It is found that the petitioners had allegedly assaulted the respondents 2 and 3 with a wooden stick and only a simple injury has been caused to them. In the said circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the ingredients ## **Crl.MC.No.1671 OF 2021** ## **6** of Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code are not attracted to incorporate the offence. All the other offences are compoundable falling within the fold of Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code. There is no public interest involved and the injured have stated that they have no objection in the proceeding being quashed. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab** [2012 (10) SCC 303] and **Prabatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another** [(2017) 9 SCC 641] has held that in facts and circumstances of a case and to secure the ends of justice, where the High Court is satisfied that an amicable settlement has been arrived between the parties and the offence is not serious in nature involving mental depravity, criminal proceedings may be quashed. ## **Crl.MC.No.1671 OF 2021** ## **7** 10. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on being convinced that ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power of this Court, particularly since the alleged offences are not serious in nature, no public interest is involved, the chances of conviction is remote, the continuation of the proceeding would only be wastage of judicial time and the settlement would augur harmony, I am satisfied that the petition is to be allowed. In the result, the Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure1 final report in Crime No.1088/2012 of the Pattambi Police Station, Palakkad and all further proceedings in S.C No.255/2014 of the Additional Sessions Court -IV, Palakkad, as against the petitioners are quashed. ## ma/30.04.2021 **Sd/- C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** ## **/True copy/** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** |**ANNEXURE**|**1**|**CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN**| |---|---|---| |||**S.C.255/2014 OF ADDL. SESSIONS COURT -**| |||**IV, PALAKKAD.**| |**ANNEXURE**|**A2**|**AFFIDAVIT OF THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT /**| |||**2ND RESPONDENT.**| |**ANNEXURE**|**A3**|**AFFIDAVIT OF THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT /**| |||**2ND RESPONDENT.**|