High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-10-17Quashed

Firoz and others v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C.No.4835 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
Judgment Date: 2016-10-17
Court Decision / Holding: The court allowed the petition under Section 482 CrPC and quashed the entire proceedings in CC 181/2013, holding that the offences do not involve grave mental depravity, the matter has been settled, and continuation would cause oppression and prejudice to the parties. Annexure A1 final report and related proceedings were quashed.
Final Disposition: Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Firoz
Faizal
Moosakutty
Azeez
Manzoor
Rashi
Mohammed Fousi

Respondents

State of Kerala
Suresh
Abdul Salam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri K. I. Sageer

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri K. M. Nasarudheen
• Public Prosecutor Sri Amjad Ali

Case Synopsis & Summary

This petition arises as Crl.M.C. No. 4835 of 2016 filed by seven accused (1 to 7) against CC 181/2013 pending in the Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Perinthalmanna, Malappuram district. The accused are charged under Sections 143, 147, 148, 342, 323 and 326 read with Section 149 IPC for forming an unlawful assembly and assaulting respondents 2 and 3, resulting in grievous injuries. The petition seeks to quash the criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, relying on a settlement of disputes between the parties. The petition cites the Supreme Court’s Gian Singh v. State of Punjab to contend that the High Court’s inherent power under 482 CrPC can quash proceedings where there is a settlement and the matter has predominantly civil/private flavour; Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Rajesh Kamath J. and Others v. Mohana Kurup and Others are cited as guidance for such exercise. The learned Public Prosecutor expresses reservations about invoking 482 in cases of this nature, though notes no other criminal cases against the petitioners. The court observes that the alleged offences are not grave, the victims have filed affidavits stating no subsisting grievance, and continuing the case would cause oppression and prejudice. On these grounds, the court allows the petition under 482 CrPC and quashes the proceedings in CC 181/2013, with Annexure A1 final report and related proceedings quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)Sections 143, 147, 148, 342, 323 and 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Inherent power of High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings; quashing based on settlement between private parties in cases with civil flavour; applicability of guidelines from Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, and Rajesh Kamath J. v. Mohana Kurup for such quashing decisions.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that the disputes between the accused and the injured parties have been mutually settled, which eliminates the necessity for continuation of the criminal proceedings. Citing Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, the petitioners urged that the High Court can exercise its extraordinary powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash where there is a settlement and the offence involved has a predominantly civil flavour. They submitted that continuation would be oppressive and a futile exercise given the absence of subsisting grievances from the injured parties.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor reserved his position, noting that the invocation of Section 482 CrPC must be careful and not routinely applicable, but acknowledged that there are no other cases against the petitioners. He did not oppose settlement in principle but emphasized that 482 quashing should be exercised with caution and only in appropriate cases, particularly where the offence is not grave and the dispute is essentially civil in nature.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 (4) KLT 108	Positive	Cited as the foundational authority for using 482 CrPC to quash proceedings based on private settlements in matters with civil flavour.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	2014 (6) SCC 466	Positive	Guidelines cited by the court regarding quashing in private settlement scenarios.
Rajesh Kamath J. and Others v. Mohana Kurup and Others	AIR 2016 SC 2452	Positive	Recent Supreme Court guidelines applied to assess quashing in settlements.

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 Firoz and others v. 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 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/25TH ASWINA, 1938** ## **Crl.MC.No. 4835 of 2016 () ---------------------------** **AGAINST CC 181/2013 of J.M.F.C.-I, PERINTHALMANNA DATED CRIME NO. 453/2012 OF PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM** **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 7:** ## **----------------------------** **1. FIROZ AGED YEARS, S/O.HAMZA, CHEERAKKATTIL HOUSE, ALIPPARAMBU, ANAMANGAD AMSOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK** **2. FAIZAL AGED YEARS, S/O.IBRAHIM, CHEERAKKATTIL HOUSE, ALIPPARAMBU, ANAMANGAD AMSOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK** **3. MOOSAKUTTY AGED YEARS, S/O.KUNJIMMU HAJI, KALLUPALAM VEEDU, ANAMANGAD AMSOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK** **4. AZEEZ AGED YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, KALLUVALEN VEEDU, ANAMANGAD AMSOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK** **5. MANZOOR S/O.AZEEZ, KALLUPALAM VEEDU, ANAMANGAD AMSOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK** **6. RASHI AGED YEARS, S/O.SHARAFUDEEN, KALLUVALEN VEEDU, ANAMANGAD AMSOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK** **7. MOHAMMED FOUSI AGED YEARS, S/O.IBRAHIM, CHEERAKKATTIL HOUSE, ALIPPARAMBU, ANAMANGAD AMSOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK** **BY ADV. SRI.K.I.SAGEER** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE, COMPLAINANT & INJURED:** ## **-------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA** - **REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, (CRIME NO. 453/2012) PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION, PERINTHALMANNA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKUALM, PIN 682031** **2. SURESH** - **S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, VARIYATHODI HOUSE, ANAMANGAD AMSOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, PIN 679322** **3. ABDUL SALAM** - **S/O.ALAVI, KARIKKUPURATH HOUSE, CHETHANAMKURSHI, ANAMANGAD AMSOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, PIN 679322** **R2,3 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.NASARUDHEEN R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.MC.No. 4835 of 2016 () ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES** **-----------------------** **ANNEXURE AI A TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 453/2012 OF PERINTHALMANA POLICE STATION** **ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT** **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL** **-----------------------** **TRUE COPY** **P.A.TO JUDGE.** **kp** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 4835 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 17[th] October, 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **ORDER** - 1.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1 to 7 in C.C.No.181 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of - 1[st] Class-I, Perinthalmanna. They stand indicted for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 342, 323 and 326 read with Section 149 of the IPC. - 2.This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') by the petitioners, banking on the ratio of the Judgment rendered by the Apex Court in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab** - ( 2012 (4) KLT 108) with a prayer to quash the above proceeding on the ground of settlement of disputes. - 3.The prosecution allegation is that on 11.4.2012 at 8 am - the petitioners formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and assaulted respondents 2 and 3 causing grievous injuries. Crl.M.C.No.4835 of 2016 -2- - 4.The respondents 2 and 3 have entered appearance through their counsel and have filed separate affidavits wherein it is stated that they have no subsisting grievance against the petitioners. They assert in the affidavit that they do not wish that the criminal proceedings against the petitioners should continue. - 5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, this Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings. - 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.In **Gian Singh** (supra) the Apex Court has crystalised the Crl.M.C.No.4835 of 2016 -3- position in respect of the powers vested in the High Court under S.482 of the Code, to quash the criminal proceedings. It was held that the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Code, is not limited to quash proceedings within the ambit and scope of Section 320 of the Code. The three - Judge Bench in the above case, clearly expounded, that quashing of criminal proceedings under S.482 of the Code, could also be based on settlements between private parties, and could also on a compromise between the offender and the victim. Only that, the above power did not extend to crimes against the society. It is also relevant to mention, that the jurisdiction vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Code, for quashing criminal proceedings, was held to be exercisable in criminal cases having an overwhelming and predominatingly civil flavour, particularly offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership, or such like transactions. In all such cases, Crl.M.C.No.4835 of 2016 -4- the parties should have resolved their entire dispute by themselves, mutually. Further, guidelines were issued by the Apex Court in **Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab** [2014 (6) SCC 466] and recently in **Rajesh Kamath J. and Others v. Mohana Kurup and Others** [AIR 2016 SC 2452]. 8.I have considered the rival submissions and I have gone through the materials on record. 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. More over, when the respondents 2 and 3 have settled the matter, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and the continuation of the criminal case against the petitioners would be a futile exercise. It would also put the petitioners and respondents 2 and 3 to great oppression and prejudice. Crl.M.C.No.4835 of 2016 -5- - 9.Having considered all the relevant circumstances and 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. AnnexureA1 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.C.No.181 of 2013 on the file fo the Judicial Magistrate of 1[st] Class-I, Perinthalmanna are quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE** kp/-18.10.16