Crl.MC.No.1907 of 2021 (G)
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- C.S.Dias
- Judgment Date
- 2021-04-27
- Court Decision / Holding
- Crl.MC is allowed. Annexure A2 final report and all further proceedings pursuant to it in CC No.1020/2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg in crime No.793/2017 are quashed against the petitioners.
- Final Disposition
- The petition is allowed; the final report and proceedings in CC No.1020/2018 (crime 793/2017) are quashed against the petitioners.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Marshad P
- Mustak K.H
- Muhammed Nabeel C.H
- Shakeer M
- Ameen A.K
- Fahad C.P
- Abdul Rahim
- A. Abdul Khader
- Mashood I
- Ashkar T.M
- Nuyan K.H
- Muhammedali M.K
- Afsal M.K
- Junaif
- Musammal P
Respondents
- State of Kerala through the Station House Officer, Chandera Police Station (Crime No. 350 of 2020), represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
- Khalid C., Managing Director, Manzoor Hospital, Kanhangad, Ajanur Village, Hosdurg Taluk, Kasaragod District
- Biju Narayanan
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Smt. Rosin Joseph
- • Shri Ajai Babu
Counsels for Respondents
- • Adv. Rishi Varma T.R (for Respondents 2 & 3)
- • Public Prosecutor Rehna N.S.
Case Synopsis & Summary
This is a criminal miscellaneous case under Section 482 CrPC concerning quashing of the prosecution in Crime No. 793/2017 of Hosdurg Police Station, and its related CC No. 1024/2018 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg. The petitioners, accused Nos. 1 to 15, challenge Annexure A2, the final report, and seek quashing of further proceedings on the ground that a negotiated settlement has been reached with the complainants, respondents 2 and 3. They contend that the offences cited—Sections 143, 147, 148 and 324 IPC read with 149 IPC, and Sections 3 read with 4 of the Kerala Health Care Service Persons and Health Care Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property) Act, 2012—are not serious and do not involve mental depravity. The petition is supported by the defense counsel, who states that with the intervention of well-wishers the dispute has been settled, and the respondents 2 and 3 have filed affidavits stating no subsisting grievance and unwillingness to pursue the matter. The investigating officer confirms the genuineness of the settlement, and the State has no serious objection. Citing Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Prabatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, the court reasons that where ends of justice require, amicable settlements in non-serious offences may justify quashing. The High Court, in exercise of its inherent power, allows the petition, quashing Annexure A2 final report and further proceedings in CC 1020/2018 against the petitioners.
Provisions of Law Cited
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Ends of justice
- Amicable settlement can justify quashing of criminal proceedings (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab; Prabatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat)
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners contend that the dispute with respondents 2 and 3 has been resolved amicably with the intervention of well-wishers, and affidavits filed by the respondents 2 and 3 express no subsisting grievance and a desire to withdraw. They emphasize that the offences charged are not serious and do not involve mental depravity, and that continued proceedings would waste judicial time. Relying on Gian Singh and Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur, they urge quashing under the court’s inherent power to secure ends of justice in the context of an amicable settlement and lack of public interest in the case.
Contentions of Respondents
Respondents 2 and 3 have filed affidavits expressing no grievance and no desire to pursue the matter. The State did not raise serious objections, noting the genuineness of the settlement verified by the investigating officer. The respondents rely on the principle that when an amicable settlement exists and the offences are not grave, ends of justice may warrant quashing, provided there is no public interest at stake. The court is urged to consider the affidavits and the lack of grievance in light of Gian Singh and Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur to approve withdrawal and quash proceedings.
Cited Precedents (2)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gian Singh v. State of Punjab | 2012 (10) SCC 303 | Positive | The court relies on the principle that in appropriate circumstances, amicable settlements in non-serious offences may justify quashing proceedings under inherent power to secure ends of justice. |
| Prabatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others v. State of Gujarat and another | 2017 (9) SCC 641 | Positive | Courts use this decision to support quashing based on amicable settlement and not serious offences, aligning with the ends of justice doctrine. |
Diagnostic Tool
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.1907 of 2021 (G) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.