High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2019-10-10The petitions are allowed; the entire proceedin...

Faisal v. State of Kerala (Crl.M.C. Nos. 5384/2019 & 5401/2019)

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C.No.5384/2019 & 5401/2019

Neutral Citation:/null

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: R. Narayana Pisharadi
Judgment Date: 2019-10-10
Court Decision / Holding: The petitions are allowed. The entire proceedings against the petitioners in L.P. No. 1/2018 and S.C. No. 305/2019, based on the final report in Crime No. 32/2009, Perumpadappu Police Station, Malappuram District, are quashed.
Final Disposition: The petitions are allowed; the entire proceedings in L.P.1/2018 and S.C.No.305/2019 are quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Faisal
Shefeeque

Respondents

Sayed Muhammed
The Sub Inspector of Police, Perumpadappu Police Station, Malappuram District
Inspector of Police, Ponnani, Malappuram District
State of Kerala (represented by Public Prosecutor)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sunny Mathew

Counsels for Respondents

• Sonu Augustine
• B. Jayasurya
• Smt V. Sreeja

Case Synopsis & Summary

These criminal miscellaneous petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenge the final report in Crime No. 32/2009 of the Perumpadappu Police Station and related proceedings (L.P. No. 1/2018 and S.C. No. 305/2019) before the Additional Sessions Court-III, Manjeri. The allegations span forming an unlawful assembly, criminal trespass with a sword, attempted murder, arson, destruction of household articles, and theft on 22 February 2009 at approximately 2:45 am. Originally 11 accused were named; several were acquitted in S.C. No. 118/2011 and others were absconding and separated for trial. The petitioners in Crl.M.C. No. 5401/2019 are accused 5 and 10; the petitioner in Crl.M.C. No. 5384/2019 is accused 6. The first respondent is the de facto complainant. The applicants seek quashing on grounds of amicable settlement with the victim. The court notes that offences are grave and heinous, and settlements alone cannot justify quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C, citing Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab and related Madhya Pradesh decisions. However, the substratum of the prosecution can be lost, as some witnesses did not identify the accused or supported the case, which may justify quashing for those not tried. Ultimately, the petitions are allowed; the entire proceedings in L.P.1/2018 and S.C. No. 305/2019 at Manjeri are quashed. The decision is by a single judge, R. Narayana Pisharadi.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 Cr.P.C.Indian Penal Code: Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 323, 324, 427, 436, 395, 307

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Settlement between accused and victim cannot automatically quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab)
substratum of prosecution can be lost during trial, which may justify quashing for those not faced with trial; reliance on Narinder Singh and MP decisions

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submitted that a amicable settlement with the de facto complainant justifies quashing the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. They argued that the substratum of the prosecution has been eroded due to earlier acquittals and other deficiencies, and continuing proceedings would be a futile exercise in the backdrop of settlement.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that the offences are grave and heinous, and a settlement cannot be a standalone ground to quash under 482 Cr.P.C. While acknowledging possible loss of substratum for some co-accused, they urged that the ongoing proceedings must not be prematurely terminated, except where the substratum is demonstrably vitiated.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	(2014) 6 SCC 466	Positive	Cited to support that amicable settlements cannot by themselves quash criminal proceedings under section 482 Cr.P.C.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar	AIR 2019 SC 1106	Positive	Cited for the principle that settlements do not automatically terminate prosecutions in grave cases.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Manish	(2015) 8 SCC 307	Positive	Supportive of the view that settlement is not a dispositive ground to quash under 482 Cr.P.C.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kalyan Singh	AIR 2019 SC 312	Positive	Adds to the jurisprudence that settlements have limited role in quashing criminal proceedings.

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 v. State of Kerala (Crl.M.C. Nos. 5384/2019 & 5401/2019) 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 R. NARAYANA PISHARADI** **THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 18TH ASWINA, 1941** ## **Crl.MC.No.5384 OF 2019(C)** **AGAINST ANNEXURE-A1 FINAL REPORT IN SC 305/2019 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE III, MANJERI** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **FAISAL AGED 32 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMED RAYAL MARAKKATTUVEETIL, PUTHIYIRUTHI MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:** |**1**|**SAYED MUHAMMED**| |---|---| ||**AGED 60 YEARS**| ||**S/O. SULAIMAN, MARAKKARATH HOUSE, AYIROOR AMSOM,**| ||**PALAPPETI DESOM, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.**| ||**679 577.**| |**2**|**THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,**| ||**PERUMPADAPPU POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 679**| ||**587.**| |**3**|**INSPECTOR OF POLICE,**| ||**PONNANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 679 577.**| |**4**|**STATE OF KERALA,**| ||**RESPONDENT 2 TO 4 REPRESENTER BY THE PUBLIC**| ||**PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.**| ||**R2 BY ADV. SONU AUGUSTINE**| ||**SMT V SREEJA-PP**| **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-102019, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5401/2019(E), THE COURT ON 10-10-2019 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Crl.M.C.Nos.5384/2019 & 5401 of 2019 2 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI** **THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 18TH ASWINA, 1941** **Crl.MC.No.5401 OF 2019(E)** **AGAINST ANNEXURE-A1 FINAL REPORT IN LP 1/2018 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT - III, MANJERI** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:** **1 SHAREEF AGED 30 YEARS S/O. ABOOBACKER, CHANGANATHUVEEDU, PERUMPADAPPU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2 * (SHAFEEQUE, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.KHALID, MURIYATH VILLA, AIYOTTICHIRA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.)** ## **IS CORRECTED AS** _**SHEFEEQUE AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, CHENNANDAKATH HOUSE, PALAPETTY P.O., MALAPPURAM.**_ **AS PER ORDER DATED 21.10.2020 IN CRL.M.A.NO.01/2020 IN CRL.M.C.NO.5401 OF 2019** **BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:** |**1**|**SAYED MUHAMMED**| |---|---| ||**AGED 60 YEARS**| ||**S/O. SULAIMAN, MARAKKARATH HOSUE, AYIROOR AMSOM,**| ||**PALAPPETTI DESOM, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM**| ||**DISTRICT, PIN CODE-679 577.**| |**2**|**THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE**| ||**PERUMBADAPPU POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-**| ||**679 587.**| Crl.M.C.Nos.5384/2019 & 5401 of 2019 3 **3 INSPECTOR OF POLICE PONNANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN CODE-679 577. 4 STATE OF KERALA (RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.)** **R1 BY ADV. SONU AUGUSTINE SR.PP SRI.B.JAYASURYA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-10-2019, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5384/2019(C), THE COURT ON 10-102019 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** 4 Crl.M.C.Nos.5384/2019 & 5401 of 2019 ## **R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, J** ************************ Crl.M.C.No.5384 of 2019 & 5401 of 2019 ----------------------------------------------------Dated this the 10[th] day of October, 2019 ## **O R D E R** These applications are filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the proceedings against the petitioners in the cases L.P.No.1/2018 and S.C.No.305/2019 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-III, Manjeri. 2. The aforesaid cases are based on the final report filed by the police in Crime No. 32/2009 of the Perumpadappu police station under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 323, 324, 427 436, 395 and 307 I.P.C. 3. The prosecution case is that, on 22.02.2009, at about 2.45 a.m, the accused in the case formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and armed with deadly weapons, they 5 Crl.M.C.Nos.5384/2019 & 5401 of 2019 criminally trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and attacked him with a sword and thereby made attempt to murder him. It is also alleged that they set fire to the house and destroyed the household articles and committed theft of 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.20,000/- from the house. 4. There were total 11 accused in the case. The case was originally numbered as S.C.No.118/2011. Accused 1 to 4, 8 and 11 faced trial in that case. As per Annexure-A2 judgment, the trial court acquitted them. The case against accused 5 to 7, 9 and 10 , who were absconding, was split up. The petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.5401/2019 are accused 5 and 10 in the case. The petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.5384/2019 is accused No.6 in the case. The first respondent in both petitions is the de facto complainant/victim. It is submitted that the matter has been amicably settled between him and the petitioners. Therefore, it is prayed that the proceedings against the petitioners in the two cases may be quashed. Crl.M.C.Nos.5384/2019 & 5401 of 2019 6 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the first respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor. 6. I have perused the separate affidavits filed by the first respondent/victim/de facto complainant in the two petitions. He has stated in the affidavits that the matter has been settled between him and the petitioners and that he has got no grievance against the petitioners and that he has no objection to terminate the proceedings against the petitioners in the cases. 7. The offences alleged against the petitioners are grave and heinous. On the basis of settlement between the parties, the proceedings against the accused in such cases cannot be quashed by invoking the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C (See **Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab: (2014) 6 SCC 466, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar : AIR 2019 SC 1106, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Manish : (2015) 8 SCC 307** and **State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kalyan Singh : AIR 2019 SC 312** ). Therefore, I am not inclined to quash the proceedings against the petitioners on the ground that a 7 Crl.M.C.Nos.5384/2019 & 5401 of 2019 settlement has been reached between them and the de facto complainant/victim. 8. However, the proceedings against the petitioners can be quashed on another ground. Annexure-A2 judgment shows that, during the trial of the case against the accused who were acquitted, the substratum of the prosecution case has been lost. PW1 to PW5 were examined during the trial of that case. PW1, the de facto complainant, had failed to identify the assailants. PW2, the wife of PW1, had deposed that she did not witness the incident. PW3, their son, had deposed that the assailants had covered their faces and therefore, he could not identify them. PW4, another eye witness, did not support the prosecution case. PW5, the investigating officer, was the only other witness examined by the prosecution during the trial against the other accused in the case. Therefore, the substratum of the prosecution case against the accused was lost in the trial. In such a case, the power of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be invoked to quash the proceedings against the accused who have 8 Crl.M.C.Nos.5384/2019 & 5401 of 2019 not faced the trial. No useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings against the petitioners. 9. In the result, the petitions are allowed. The entire proceedings against the petitioners in the cases L.P.No.1/2018 and S.C.No.305/2019 on the file of the Additional Sessions CourtIII, Manjeri, which are based on the final report filed by the police in Crime No.32/2009 of the Perumpadappu police station, are hereby quashed. (sd/-) **R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE** jsr 9 Crl.M.C.Nos.5384/2019 & 5401 of 2019 ## **APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 5384/2019** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN S.C. 305/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE III, MANJERI. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.1.2017 IN S.C. 118/2011 PASSED BY THE COURT OF ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE III, MANJERI. ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL** ## **TRUE COPY** **PS TO JUDGE** 10 Crl.M.C.Nos.5384/2019 & 5401 of 2019 ## **APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 5401/2019** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN L.P.1/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE III, MANJERI. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.1.2017 IN S.C. 118/2011 PASSED BY THE COURT OF ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE III, MANJERI. ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE IST RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL** ## **TRUE COPY** **PS TO JUDGE**