Farhad Kasim Rahman and others v. State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
Judgment Date: 2016-11-25
Court Decision / Holding: Petition allowed. The final report and all proceedings in CC No. 967 of 2012 against the petitioners are quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
Final Disposition: Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Farhad Kasim Rahman
Muhammed Harif
Thanveer
N.N. Jaseem

Respondents

State of Kerala through the Sub Inspector of Police, Eravipuram Police Station, Kollam (represented by Public Prosecutor)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri K. Siju
• Smt. S. Seetha

Counsels for Respondents

• A. Muhammed Raffi
• T. R. Renjith (Public Prosecutor)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a criminal miscellaneous case under section 482 CrPC filed in the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam by four petitioners, who are accused nos. 1 to 4 in CC No. 967 of 2012 pending before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Kollam, for offences under section 341 and section 323 read with section 34 IPC. The petition seeks to invoke the High Court’s inherent powers to quash the pending proceedings in light of a settlement between the accused and the de facto complainant. The respondents include the State of Kerala through the Eravipuram Police Station, represented by the Public Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioners emphasizes the dispute is purely personal, the matter is resolved amicably, and continuation of the proceedings would not serve public peace; it would amount to prolonging the dispute unnecessarily. The Public Prosecutor initially expresses reservations about invoking 482 CrPC in such a case. The Court relies on Supreme Court precedents Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, recognizing that where there is a settlement, the High Court may quash to secure ends of justice and prevent abuse of process. After weighing the circumstances, including gravity of the offence and likelihood of conviction, the Court concludes the petition warrants exercise of the inherent power and allows it, quashing the final report and proceedings in CC No. 967/2012. Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V, a Single Judge, presided.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)Section 341 IPCSection 323 read with Section 34 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ends of justice (doctrine)
Prevent abuse of the process of law (doctrine)
Inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC (doctrine)
Amicable settlement/compromise leading to quashing of proceedings (principle from Gian Singh and Narinder Singh)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Applicants contended that the dispute was personal and amicably resolved; quashing would promote peace and ends of justice; the matter involves no public interest and continuation would be a waste of judicial time; reliance on settled law (Gian Singh and Narinder Singh) supports invoking 482 CrPC.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents argued that invoking 482 CrPC is not automatic and should be weighed against public interest and potential abuse of process; while settlement is relevant, the State’s concerns and the likelihood of conviction must be considered.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	[(2012) 10 SCC 303]	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that settlement between victim and offender can justify quashing criminal proceedings to secure ends of justice.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	[(2014) 6 SCC 466]	Positive	Cited to reinforce the guiding factors of ends of justice and prevention of abuse of process when parties settle.

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** ## **FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/4TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 6962 of 2016 ()** ## **---------------------------** ## **AGAINST CC 967/2012 of J.M.F.C.-II, KOLLAM CRIME NO. 788/2012 OF ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION , KOLLAM** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:** **---------------------** **1. FARHAD KASIM RAHMAN** - **S/O MUHAMMED KASIM, AGED:27 YEARS, ALUMMOODU HOUSE, PARAYIL, NEAR PAKISTAN MUKKU, EDAVA VILLAGE, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT** **2. MUHAMMED HARIF** - **S/O NOPUSHAD, AGED 27 YEARS, FATHIMA MANZIL, UDAYATHARA NAGAR-117, VALATHUNGAL CHERRY, ERAVIPURAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM** **3. THANVEER** - **S/O ABDUL RASHEED, AGED 27 YEARS. THASNI MANZIL, KAYYALAKKAL CHERRY, ERAVIPURAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM** **4. N.N.JASEEM S/O NASARUDEEN, AGED 27 YEARS, JAS MANZIL, VADAKKEVILA CHERRY, VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT** **BY ADVS.SRI.K.SIJU SMT.S.SEETHA** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE:** **-------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION, REPERESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA - 682 031** **AGED 26 YEARS, S/O MURALEEDHARAN, PRANAVAM, KADAMBATTUKONAM CHERR, NAVAIKULMAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 117** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.A.MUHAMMED RAFFI R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.T.R.RENJITH** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **Crl.MC.No. 6962 of 2016 ()** ## **---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** - **----------------------A1: THE COPY OF THE FIR WITH FIS IN CRIME NO. 788/2012 OF ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION.** **A2: THE COPY OF FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED IN CRIME NO. 788/2012 A3: TRUE CPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT REGARDING STATEMENT DATED 15/10/2016** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **-----------------------** ## **//TRUE COPY//** **PA TO JUDGE** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.6962 of 2016** ## **----------------------------------------Dated this the 25[th] day of November, 2016** ## **O R D E R** - 1.This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( hereinafter referred to as the Code ) with a prayer to invoke the extraordinary inherent powers and to quash the pending criminal proceedings. - 2.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 to 4 in C.C.No.967 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Kollam. In the aforesaid case, they stand indicted under Section 341, 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC. - 3.The crux of the prosecution allegation is that on 8.5.2012 at 1.20 p.m., the petitioners herein in prosecution of their common object wrongfully restrained the 2[nd] respondent and thereafter assaulted him causing injuries. Crl.M.C.6962/2016 2 ## 4.Heard the submissions advanced. - 5.The learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. Attention of this Court is invited to the affidavit filed by him to buttress his submission. It is urged that the dispute is purely personal in nature and would not affect public peace or tranquility. Summing up it is prayed that the criminal proceedings be terminated to promote peace and harmony. - 6.The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions has expressed his reservations in the matter of quashing the proceedings on the basis of settlement. It is submitted that the invocation of powers under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is not warranted. However, it is submitted that no other cases are reported against the petitioners. - 7.I have considered the submissions. Crl.M.C.6962/2016 3 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. It was observed as follows : _“61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”_ 9.The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in **Narinder singh v. State of Punjab** [(2014) 6 SCC 466], the pertinent observations which are as under: _XXXXXXXXXXXX_ _29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis_ Crl.M.C.6962/2016 4 _petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:_ _(i) ends of justice, or_ _(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives._ _xxxxxxx_ _xxxxxxx_ 10.The offence committed by the petitioners cannot be said to be grave and serious having ingredients of extreme mental depravity. It also does not appear that the offence in this case will have a serious impact on the society .It is felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and secure the ends of justice. Even otherwise , persisting with the prosecution would be nothing but a waste of time as the prospects of conviction would be bleak. 11.Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court will be well justified in Crl.M.C.6962/2016 5 invoking its extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings. In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-2 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.C.No.967 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Kollam are quashed. **Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE** ps/25/11/16