High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-05-23Petition dismissed.

Faisal S/o Pocker and Others v. Sub Inspector of Nadapuram Police Station, Kozhikode District; Rajan; Balan; State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No. 2884 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan.V.
Judgment Date: 2016-05-23
Court Decision / Holding: Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
Final Disposition: Petition dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Faisal S/o Pocker
Fahad
Afsal
Jamsheed
Aslah S/o Kunhali
Rashid S/o Moidu

Respondents

The Sub Inspector of Police, Nadapurur(nadapuram) Police Station, Kozhikode District
Rajan (S/o Kanaran)
Balan (S/o Kannan)
State of Kerala rep. by Public Prosecutor

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. T.G. Rajendran

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor SMT. Sareena George P.R.
• Sri. Cibi Thomas

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482 CrPC before the Kerala High Court, filed by six petitioners (accused Nos. 1 to 6) seeking to quash a pending criminal proceeding arising from Crime No. 515/2011 at Nadapuram Police Station, Kozhikode, registered for offences including IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 341, 323, 324, 294(b), 307 and 153A read with 149. The final report was laid before the Magistrate, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Kozhikode, and is pending as SC No. 1400/2014 before the Ist Additional District Court, Kozhikode. The petition argues that the disputes between the parties have been amicably resolved, supported by Annexure II (joint affidavit) from respondents 2 and 3 (the de facto complainant and the injured). The petitioners contend that continuing the prosecution would be abuse of process. The respondents (through the Public Prosecutor) submit that the petitioners 1 and 3 are involved in other cases and that offences like 307 and 153A are not private in nature but affect public order; these offences are not quashable. The court surveys Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, and Yogendra Yadav v. State of Jharkhand, along with State of Madhya Pradesh v. Manish and State of MP v. Deepak, to determine whether amicable settlements can justify quashing. It ultimately holds that offences under 307 and related provisions are not private disputes and have a societal impact, and thus the petition is dismissed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of CrPCSection 143 IPCSection 147 IPCSection 148 IPCSection 447 IPCSection 341 IPCSection 323 IPCSection 324 IPCSection 294(b) IPCSection 307 IPCSection 153A read with Section 149 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Abuse of process of law
Res integra
Crime against society
Private disputes/inter se

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argue that the disputes with the complainants have been amicably settled (Annexure II). They contend that continuing prosecution would amount to abuse of process, especially since the de facto complainant and the injured have sworn affidavits recognizing resolution. They emphasize that if quashed, it would serve the ends of justice and decongest the court system, given the private nature of the dispute despite its public-order facets.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents contend that offences such as sections 307 and 153A IPC are not private disputes but crimes that affect public order and tranquility. They point out the petitioners’ involvement in other cases and argue that these offences have a societal impact, thus not amenable to quashing, despite any amicable settlement between the victim and wrongdoer.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 (10) SCC 303	Positive	Cited as the controlling authority that High Courts may quash proceedings in appropriate cases upon amicable settlement; used to support the petitioner's premise but limited by the serious nature of some offences.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	2014 (6) SCC 466	Positive	Reiterates Gian Singh’s principle; used to bolster the advisory framework for settlement-based intervention in criminal proceedings.
Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another	2014 (9) SCC 653	Positive	Affirms the settlement approach under appropriate circumstances; cited to reinforce the same line of reasoning.
State of M.P. v. Manish and Others	2015 (8) SCC 307	Positive	Holds that Section 307 offences are not private disputes but crimes against society; used to justify non-quashing in this case.
State of M.P. v. Deepak and Others	2014 (10) SCC 285	Positive	Similarly treats 307 IPC offences as crimes against society; cited to support the view not to quash.

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 Faisal S/o Pocker and Others v. Sub Inspector of Nadapuram Police Station, Kozhikode District; Rajan; Balan; State of Kerala 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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** ## **MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2016/2ND JYAISHTA, 1938** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2884 of 2016 ()** ## **--------------------------SC.NO. 1400/2014 OF IST ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE CRIME NO. 515/2011 OF NADAPURAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE** **-------------------** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 6 :** **--------------------------------------------------------** **1. FAISAL S/O.POCKER, AGED 27 YEARS, AKKANDIYIL HOUSE, KADAMERI P.O., AAYANCHERRY VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE.** **2. FAHAD** - **S/O.IBRAHIM HAJI, AGED 29 YEARS, KAPPALIYIL HOUSE, KUNIKKAD P.O., PURAMERI VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE.** **3. AFSAL** - **S/O.MOIDU HAJI, AGED 26 YEARS CHALIL HOUSE, KADAMERI P.O., CHALIKANDY, AAYANCHERRY VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE.** **4. JAMSHEED** - **S/O.KAREEM, AGED 27 YEARS THAZHE NELLARATH HOUSE, KADAMERI P.O., AAYANCHERRY VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE.** **5. ASLAH S/O.KUNHALI, AGED 30 YEARS,** - **NUPLATA HOUSE, CHALIKKUNI, KADAMERI P.O., AAYANCHERRY VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE.** **6. RASHID,** - **S/O.MOIDU, AGED 35 YEARS, PAKERIKKUNNI HOUSE, KADAMERI P.O., AAYANCHERRY VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN** **...2/-** **Crl.MC.No. 2884 of 2016 () -2-** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS AND STATE :** **---------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NADAPURAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 504.** **2. RAJAN,** - **S/O.KANARAN, AGED 55 YEARS KUNIYIL THAZHE KUNIYIL HOUSE, KADAMERI P.O., AAYANCHERI AMSOM, KADAMERI DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE - 673 101.** **3. BALAN S/O.KANNAN, AGED 55 YEARS KANNANKUNNATH THAZHE KUNI HOUSE, KAAMERI P.O., AYANCHERRY AMSOM, KADAMERI DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE - 673 101** **4. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682031.** - **R1 & R4 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SAREENA GEORGE P. R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Mn** **...3/-** **Crl.MC.No. 2884 of 2016 () -------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES :** **--------------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT.** **ANNEXURE II THE TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS RESPECTIVELY** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES : NIL** **----------------------------------------------------------------** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE Mn** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J. ================== Crl.M.C.No. 2884 of 2016 ==================** Dated this the 23[rd] day of May, 2016 ## **O R D E R** This application is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) seeking invocation of powers to quash pending Criminal Proceedings . 2. Crime No. 515 of 2011 was registered by the Nadapuram Police Station against the petitioners herein under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 341, 323, 324, 294(b), 307, 153(A) read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. After completion of the investigation, the final reports was laid before the jurisdictional Magistrate and the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Kozhikode and the same is now pending as S.C No. 1400 of 2014 on the file of Ist Additional District Court, Kozhikode . 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the disputes between the parties have been amicably resolved. Banking on Annexure II affidavit sworn to by the respondents 2 and 3, who are the **Crl.M.C.No. 2884 of 2016** **2** _de facto_ complainant and the injured respectively, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the continuance of prosecution as against the petitioners would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. 5. The learned counsel who entered appearance on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 endorsed the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions, submitted a statement wherein it is reported that the petitioners 1 to 3 are accused in several other cases. It is also submitted that the petitioners 4, 5 and 6 have not involved themselves in any case within the limits of Nadapuram Police Station. It is further urged that the petitioners 1 and 3 are inveterate criminals and the offences charged under Section 307 and 153(A) of the IPC cannot be quashed on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the parties. According to the learned counsel the said offences are not private or personal and have an **Crl.M.C.No. 2884 of 2016** **3** adverse impact on the public order and tranquility. 7. The law with regard to the settlement of criminal disputes on the strength of an amicable resolution of the disputes between the parties is no more _res integra_ . 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. This view was reiterated in **Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014 (6) SCC 466) and Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another (2014 (9) SCC 653)** 9. However, it was held that such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Offences **4** ## **Crl.M.C.No. 2884 of 2016** under Section 307 of the IPC was also held to fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and it was held that those offences are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone unless special circumstances come to the notice of the Court to take a different view _._ 10. The Apex Court in **State of M.P. v. Manish and Others (2015 (8) SCC 307)** and also in **State of M.P. v. Deepak and Others (2014 (10) SCC 285)** has held that offence under Section 307 of the IPC is not to be treated as a private dispute between the parties _inter se_ but is to be held to be a crime against the society. The petitioners are reported to be involved in several other crimes and it cannot be forgotten that they are being proceeded against for having committed offence under section 153 (A) of the IPC as well. 11. This Court is of the view that the proceedings against the petitioners cannot be quashed even though the **5** ## **Crl.M.C.No. 2884 of 2016** victim and the offender have settled the dispute as those offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, Judge** lsn