High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2014-07-22The petitions are allowed; the court quashes al...

Crl.M.C Nos. 2950/2014 & 3157/2014

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC No. 2950 of 2014; Crl.MC No. 3157 of 2014

Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: V.K. Mohanan
Judgment Date: 2014-07-22
Court Decision / Holding: In the result, Crl.M.C No. 2950/2014 is allowed and quashing is issued against all further proceedings in S.C No.23/2013 (Crime No. 636/2011) and, similarly, Crl.M.C No. 3157/2014 is allowed and quashing is issued for Annexure I FIR and final report in Crime No. 617/2011; all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in S.C No. 583/2013 are quashed.
Final Disposition: The petitions are allowed; the court quashes all further proceedings in the two connected criminal cases and closes the matter in terms of quashing the FIRs/FIR ultimate reports and related proceedings.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Hamzakkutty S/o Mamu
Haneefa S/o Mamu
Asharaf S/o Moideenkutty
Naseer S/o Abdurahiman

Respondents

The State of Kerala
Mansoor S/o Chalil Abdu Rahman
Nadira

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Babu S. Nair
• Sri. K. Rakesh

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor SMT. Bindu Gopinath
• Sri. R. Ranjith
• Sri. K.B. Arunkumar
• Sri. Rakesh K. (advocate for 2nd respondent in Crl.M.C No.3157/2014)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous petitions under section 482 CrPC filed by four accused (Hamzakkutty, Haneefa, Asharaf and Naseer) seeking quashing of connected criminal proceedings arising from two crimes registered at Ponnani Police Station: Crime No. 636/2011 (offences under sections 324 and 308 IPC) and Crime No. 617/2011 (offence under section 376 IPC). The de facto complainants in these cases are Mansoor and Nadira, respectively, with the second respondent in each petition being the complainant from the other case. Annexures include true copies of charge sheets, a medical certificate, and affidavits evidencing settlement between the parties. The petitions rely on the Supreme Court’s Gian Singh v. State of Punjab decision, arguing that when the dispute has a substantial civil flavour and the victim and offender have settled, the High Court may quash to secure ends of justice and prevent oppression from continued prosecution. The court notes the two cases are connected and that the victim in one case is the daughter of the first accused in the other. Considering the settlement and the potential for injustice if prosecution continues, the court quashes the proceedings in both matters, citing Gian Singh and the need to prevent abuse of process and ensure ends of justice.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 324 IPCSection 308 IPCSection 376 IPCSection 482 CrPCSection 320 CrPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Inherent power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings
Ends of justice as a guiding principle for quashing
Prevention of abuse of the process of the court
No category can be prescribed for quashing; depends on facts and circumstances
Quashing may be appropriate where the offender and victim have settled disputes and continued prosecution would be unjust

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners challenged the continuance of the two connected prosecutions under Section 482 CrPC, arguing that the disputes between the accused and the victims had been fully settled (Annexure C and the affidavit by the second respondent). They asserted that maintaining the criminal proceedings would cause oppression and prejudice and that quashing would serve ends of justice, particularly given the victim’s marriage and peaceful life. They relied on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab to justify quashing where the settlement renders conviction remote and continued proceedings are unjust.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents opposed unnecessary continuation of criminal proceedings, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences (including rape in Crime No. 617/2011) and the need for a fair trial. They argued that quashing should not be done categorically and must be guarded by judicial scrutiny, though acknowledging the absence of prospects of successful conviction given the settlements described.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012(4) KLT 108(SC)	Positive	Cited for the proposition that the High Court’s inherent power to quash criminal proceedings can be exercised in cases where ongoing prosecution would be unjust due to a settlement between offender and victim; the court applies this principle to both connected cases.

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 Nos. 2950/2014 & 3157/2014 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 V.K.MOHANAN** ## **TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2014/31ST ASHADHA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2950 of 2014 ()** **--------------------------SC 23/2013 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (FAST TRACK COURT NO-III), MANJERI ---------** **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED :** **1. HAMZAKUTTY, S/O.MAMU, HAJIYARAKATHU HOUSE, VELIYANCODE P.O., PONNANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **2. HANEEFA, S/O.MAMU, HAJIYARAKATHU HOUSE, VELIYANCODE P.O., PONNANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **3. ASHARAF, S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY, PUTHUPONNANIKKARAKANTAKATHU, PONNANI SOUTH P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **4. NASEER, S/O.ABDURAHIMAN, THEKKAN HOUSE, VELIYANCODE P.O., PONNANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.BABU S. NAIR SRI.K.RAKESH** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT :** **---------------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. THE STATE OF KERALA** - **REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PONNANI POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31.** **2. MANSOOR, S/O.CHALIL ABDU RAHMAN, VELIYAMKODE P.O. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 679579.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. BINDU GOPINATH R2 BY ADV. SRI.R.RANJITH (K/489/2011)** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-07-2014 ALONG WITH CRL.MC 3157/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **BP** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2950 of 2014 () ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** |**PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS**|**PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS**|| |---|---|---| |**-------------------------------------**||| |**ANNEXURE-A:**|**TRUE COPY OF THE**|**MEMORANDUM OF EVIDENCE AND**| ||**CHARGE IN CRIME NO.636/2011 OF HTE PONNANI POLICE**|| ||**STATION.**|| |**ANNEXURE-B:**|**TRUE COPY OF THE**|**MEDICAL CERTIFICATE OF THE FIRST**| ||**PETITIONER ISSUED**|**BY RENOWNED ONCOLOGIST,**| ||**V.P.GANGADHARAN.**|| |**ANNEXURE-C:**|**TRUE COPY OF THE**|**AFFIDAVIT DATED, 31.5.2014 SWORN TO**| ||**BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, EVIDENCING THE SETTLEMENT.**|| |**RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS**<br>**:**||**NIL**| |||**//TRUE COPY//**| **P.A. TO JUDGE** **BP** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J** **=========================== Crl.M.C Nos.2950 & 3157 of 2014 ============================ Dated this the 22[nd] day of July, 2014** ## **ORDER** Crl.M.C No.2950/2014 is directed against Crime No. 636/2011 of Ponnani Police Station involving offences punishable under Sections 324 and 308 of the Indian Penal Code which was registered on the basis of the information furnished by the 2[nd] respondent in the above Crl.M.C, who is the de facto complainant therein. Crl.M.C No.3157/2014 is directed against Crime No.617/2011 of the very same Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, instituted at the instance of the de facto complainant, one Nadira, who is the 2[nd] respondent in Crl.M.C No.3157/2014. The petitioner in the above Crl.M.C is the sole accused in Crime No.617/2011. It is 2 **Crl.MC No.2950/2014&3157/2014** also relevant to note that the victim in Crime No.617/2011 of Ponnani Police Station is the daughter of the first accused in Crime No.636/2011. As the entire dispute involved in the above two cases are settled, the petitioners who are accused in the above crimes approached this Court by filing the above two different Crl.M.Cs under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Heard Adv. Sri. Babu.S.Nair, learned counsel for petitioner and Adv.Sri.Ranjith.R, learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent in Crl.M.C No.2950/2014, Adv.Sri.K.B.Arunkumar, learned counsel for petitioner and Adv.Sri.Rakesh. K, lcearned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent, in Crl.M.C No.3157/2014 and also the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. It appears that on the basis of the crimes registered the Police had undertaken investigation and finally they prepared 3 **Crl.MC No.2950/2014&3157/2014** charge on the basis of which proceedings now instituted and thus, S.C No.23/2013 was instituted in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge(Fast Track Court No.-III), Manjeri against Crime No.636/2011 and similarly, S.C No.583/2013 is instituted, which pending trial in the court of Additional Sessions Judge - I, Manjeri connected with Crime No. 617/2011. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, it appears that the first crime was registered with Crime No. 617/2011 connected with the alleged incident of rape of the victim therein who is the daughter of the first accused in Crime No. 636/2011. As the entire dispute had been settled between the contesting parties, I am of the view that even if the trial is proceeded there is no scope for any fruitful prosecution rather the same will be resulted in wastage of judicial time. As the victim in 4 **Crl.MC No.2950/2014&3157/2014** the rape case is already married and she is leading a peaceful married life it is not advisable to proceed the crime in the above two cases. In this juncture, it is relevant to note the decision of the Honourable Apex Court reported in **Gian Singh** v. **State of Punjab** [2012(4) KLT 108(SC)], in which case, the Supreme Court has held as follows:- _“57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under S.320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz;(i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R. may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed.._ **Crl.MC No.2950/2014&3157/2014** 5 ## It is further held as follows:- “...... _... But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial,mercandile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim........”_ According to me, in the light of the above decision, all the proceedings pending against the petitioners in the above two cases can be quashed, particularly in view of Annexure C affidavit of 2[nd] respondent in Crl.M.C No.2950/2014 and Annexure 2 affidavit of the victim in Crl.M.C No.3157/2014. 6 **Crl.MC No.2950/2014&3157/2014** In the result, Crl.M.C No. 2950/2014 is allowed quashing all further proceedings in S.C No.23/2013 on the file of Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track Court No.III), Manjeri arising out of Crime No. 636/2011 of the Ponnani Police Station and Crl.M.C No.3157/2014 is also allowed quashing Annexure - I F.I.R and final report in the above crime and all further proceedings pending against the petitioner in S.C No.583/2013 on the file of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge - I, Manjeri. **Sd/-** **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** //True Copy// P.A to Judge vdv