High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-11-08Petition allowed; quashing of proceedings in SC...

Favas N.K. and others v. State of Kerala and Muhammed Shafeeq

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC No. 3180 of 2016; SC No. 126/2016

Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
Judgment Date: 2016-11-08
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is allowed; the final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners in S.C. No.126 of 2016 are quashed.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; quashing of proceedings in SC No.126/2016 and related actions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Favas N.K.
Murshid Ali
Farseen
Mashrool
Agosh
Gokul Krishna
Shimil Babu

Respondents

The State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam (for the Sub Inspector of Police, Melattoor Police Station, Malappuram District)
Muhammed Shafeeq, aged 18 years, S/O Abdul Azeez, etc.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. K. Rakesh

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor Sri. T.R. Renjith
• Adv. SMT. K. Nisha

Case Synopsis & Summary

This petition under Section 482 CrPC seeks to quash proceedings in S.C. No.126/2016 (Additional District and Sessions Court, Manjeri) arising from Melettaoor Police Station Crime No.519/2015. The petitioners—seven engineering students of MEA Engineering College at Vengoor—are charged under IPC sections 143 (unlawful assembly), 147 (rioting), 341 (wrongful restraint) and 323 (causing hurt), along with Section 4 of the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act, for alleged ragging and assault of the second respondent. The prosecution alleges that on 29 July 2015, during a college bus journey, the 2nd respondent was asked to sing a song; after he refused, the petitioners allegedly restrained him and assaulted him the following day. The 2nd respondent lodged a complaint leading to registration and trial. The petition contends that the dispute is purely personal; the parties and their families have since sat together, the 2nd respondent has sworn an affidavit, and both sides now refer to each other as friends. They urge the High Court to invoke its inherent powers to quash the proceedings to promote peace and harmony and avoid harassment. The Public Prosecutor notes the victim has no subsisting grievance and there are no other cases. Citing Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, the court recognizes that amicable settlements may justify quashing to secure ends of justice and prevent abuse of process, and accordingly quashes the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, terminating SC No.126/2016 and related actions.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 CrPCIPC Sections 143, 147, 341, 323Section 4 of the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ends of justice
Abuse of process of law

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that the dispute is personal, with parties and families having agreed to end the prosecution to promote peace and harmony. They contend there is no public interest involved and that continuing the proceedings would amount to abuse of process and constitute an unfair harassment of students whose lives would be unnecessarily disrupted. They point to the affidavit of the second respondent and the final report describing a trivial incident blown out of proportion. The counsel urges invocation of the Court’s extraordinary powers under Section 482 CrPC, arguing that quashing the case would secure ends of justice and serve social interests given the parties’ current cordial relationship. They emphasize the amicable settlement and lack of ongoing grievance, and insist that the case should not squander judicial time or disrupt education. They rely on established jurisprudence that where there is a genuine settlement and no substantial harm, the High Court can quash to prevent abuse of process and preserve resources.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the victim has no subsisting grievance, and there is no public interest in continuing the prosecution, especially since the parties are students and the incident occurred within a college setting. They acknowledge the amicable settlement and there are no other cases, and while they submit to the court’s discretion, they urge careful consideration of public interest and disciplinary implications before quashing. They rely on the same principles but ultimately recognize the court’s authority to quash if ends of justice require it in light of the settlement.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	(2012) 10 SCC 303	Positive	Apex Court held that High Courts may quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases on the basis of amicable settlement between victim and accused to secure ends of justice and prevent abuse of process.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	(2014) 6 SCC 466	Positive	Reiterated that ends of justice and avoidance of abuse of process guide quashing when there is a settlement between the parties.

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 Favas N.K. and others v. State of Kerala and Muhammed Shafeeq 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** ## **TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/17TH KARTHIKA, 1938** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3180 of 2016** ## **-------------------------------------** ## **S.C.NO. 126/2016 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI CRIME NO. 519/2015 OF MELATTOOR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT -----------------** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :** **------------------------------------------** **1. FAVAS N.K., S/O.SULAIMAN, NECHIKKADAN HOUSE, KARULAI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **2. MURSHID ALI,** - **S/O.SHOUKATHALI, VALAPRA HOUSE, CHANDAKUNNU P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **3. FARSEEN,** - **S/O.C.MAMUKKOYA, POTTAMMAL HOUSE, NEDIYIRIPPU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **4. MASHROOL,** - **S/O.HAMZA FOUSI, CHEERAMATH HOUSE, CHEMMANIYOD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **5. AGOSH,** - **S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, KALATHIL HOUSE, CHATTIPARAMBU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **6. GOKUL KRISHNA, S/O. GOPAKUMARAN, GOKULAM HOUSE, VALLUVANGAD P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **7. SHIMIL BABU,** - **S/O.SAKEER HUSSAIN, KINATTINGAL HOUSE, KODUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.K.RAKESH** **..2/-** **..2..** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3180 of 2016** ## **-------------------------------------** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & INJURED :** **--------------------------------------------------------** **1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 031FOR THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MELATTOOR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **2. MUHAMMED SHAFEEQ AGED 18 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL AZEEZ, JALALIYA MANZIL, CHOORAPOYIL, PUNNAPALA P.O., NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 328.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. T.R.RENJITH R2 BY ADV. SMT.K.NISHA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Msd. ## **Crl.MC.No. 3180 of 2016** ## **-------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :** - **A1. TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF EVIDENCE AND CHARGE IN CRIME NO.519/2015 OF MELATTOOR POLICE STATION.** - **A2 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 01/05/2016.** **A3 TRUE COPY OF THE SECONDARY SCHOOL LEAVING CERTIFICATE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :** ## **NIL** ## **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.A.TO JUDGE** Msd. ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J** ## **---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No. 3180 of 2016** ## **----------------------------------------Dated this the 8[th] day of November, 2016** ## **O R D E R** - 1.This petition is filed under S.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 7 in S.C. No.126 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Manjeri. They stand indicted for having committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 323 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act. 3. The prosecution allegation as is revealed from Annexure A final report runs in the following lines :- The petitioners and the 2[nd] respondent are Engineering students of the MEA Engineering College at Vengoor. More specifically, the 2[nd] respondent is a 1[st] year Computer Crl.M.C. No. 3180 of 2016 2 Science Enginering student and the petitioners are 2[nd] year students of the Electrical and Electronics Engineering branch. On 29.07.2015, while the students were travelling in the College Bus, the petitioners asked the 2[nd] respondent to sing a song. The 2[nd] respondent did not heed to their demand. On the next day while the 2[nd] respondent was returning from the Electrical Workshop, the petitioners are alleged to have wrongfully restrained him and thereafter assaulted him with their hands. Immediately thereafter, the 2[nd] respondent lodged a complaint before the Principal of the College which was forwarded to the Police resulting in the registration of the crime. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner , the 2[nd] respondent as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the Crl.M.C. No. 3180 of 2016 3 2[nd] respondent that after the incident, the parties and their respective families have sat together and decided that it was not in their best interests to continue with the prosecution .According to the learned counsel , the 2[nd] respondent and thepetitioners are now close friends and he does not wish that the criminal proceedings should continue any further . Attention of this Court is also drawn to the affidavit filed by the 2[nd] respondent 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 Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are students and their whole life has been shattered as a result of them being implicated in this case. The counsel refers to the final report and submits that a trivial incident has been blown beyond proportion Crl.M.C. No. 3180 of 2016 4 and prays for invocation of powers of this Court. 7.The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submits that the investigating officer had recorded the statement of the victim and he has stated that he has no subsisting grievance . No serious objection is raised , taking note of the fact that the parties are students. It is also submitted that no other cases are reported against the petitioners. - 8.I have considered the submissionsand have gone through the materials on record. ## 9.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_ Crl.M.C. No. 3180 of 2016 5 _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.”_ 10.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 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_ 11.Though the act committed by the petitioners cannot be justified, I take note of the fact that no grave physical Crl.M.C. No. 3180 of 2016 6 harm was caused. The statement of the 2[nd] respondent recorded by the police and also his affidavit reveals that the parties are studying in the same college and are now friends . 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. 12.Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court will be well justified in invoking its extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings. In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A Crl.M.C. No. 3180 of 2016 7 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as S.C. No.126 of 2016 of Additional District and Sessions Court, Manjeri are quashed. **Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE** SKS //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE