Firoz Khan and others v. State of Kerala and others

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
Judgment Date: 2016-08-16
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is allowed; all proceedings arising from Crime No. 419/2016 against the petitioners are quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; proceedings quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Firoz Khan
Anaz
Iqbal
Shahid
Umar Shereef
Muhammed Rize
Shine
Aadil Muhammed
Shiraz
Muhammed Nofal
Ajmal Khan

Respondents

Dhanus B. Chandran
Rahul
Muhammed Sha
Noufal
Sreeraj
State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Liju M.P.

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. Shahim Bin Aziz
• Public Prosecutor P. Pushpalathy.M.K

Case Synopsis & Summary

In Crl.M.C. No. 4784 of 2016 before the Kerala High Court, the petitioners (accused 1–11) sought to quash Crime No. 419/2016 of Attingal Police Station under IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 341, 324, 326 and 307, and to terminate further proceedings. The de facto complainants/injured (respondents 1–5) and the State opposed none of the accused’ persistence in prosecution, as the petition was supported by flexibly amicable settlements evidenced by separate affidavits. Both sides relied on Apex Court jurisprudence—specifically Gian Singh v. State of Punjab to advance their positions—while the Public Prosecutor conceded that Section 307 cannot be treated as purely private. The court, after examining the materials, found the case to be personal in nature and not affecting public peace or tranquility. The first respondent sustained injury deemed not serious on medical evaluation, and the court noted that settlement would likely benefit the community, reducing oppression and prejudice. Relying on Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, and on the broader principle that a settlement can justify quashing under Section 482 CrPC in appropriate circumstances, the court allowed the petition and quashed all proceedings in Crime No. 419/2016. The matter ends with the quashing of proceedings, enabling the parties to move forward in peace.

Provisions of Law Cited

IPC sections 143IPC sections 147IPC sections 148IPC sections 149IPC section 341IPC section 324IPC section 326IPC section 307CrPC section 482

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Settlement and reformation principle enabling quashing under CrPC 482 (Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab)
Quashing of proceedings in private dispute where no public interest is involved (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submitted that the disputes were resolved amicably, and the parties now live in peace. They argued that the case involves a private, personal dispute with limited or no public interest, and that quashing under Section 482 CrPC would promote community harmony and give the petitioners a chance at reform. They relied on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh to justify quashing in light of settlement and non-serious injuries.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that Section 307 cannot be treated as a purely private offense; however, they acknowledged no further cases against the petitioners. They pointed to the serious injury suffered by the first respondent and argued that continuing the prosecution would serve public interest. They invoked the principle in Narinder Singh that settlement may influence the outcome, but emphasized the need to assess the case’s gravity and the injury’s severity before quashing.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	(2012) 4 KLT 108	Mentioned Only	Cited as supportive authority by both sides but not treated as the controlling basis for the order.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr.	(2014) 6 SCC 466	Positive	Explicitly followed to justify quashing where injuries are not serious and there is a settlement between parties.

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 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/25TH SRAVANA, 1938** ## **Crl.MC.No. 4784 of 2016 ()** ## **--------------------------CRIME NO. 419/2016 OF ATTINGAL POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **----------------** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED. :** **-----------------------------------------** ## **1. FIROZ KHAN,** - **S/O. SHOWKATH ALI, AGED 27, FATHIMA MANZIL, KPXV-305, DEESENTMUKKU, KALLUPALAM, MUDAPURAM, KIZHUVILAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **2. ANAZ, S/O. SHAJIDHA,** - **AGED 19, ANAZ MANZIL, DEESENTMUKKU, KALLUPALAM, MUDAPURAM, KIZHUVILAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** ## **3. IQBAL, S/O. SULAIMAN, AGED 20,** - **PANAYATHARA VEETTIL, THENOORKONAM, DEESENTMUKKU, KALLUPALAM, MUDAPURAM, KIZHUVILAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** ## **4. SHAHID, S/O. MUHAMMED SHAFI,** - **AGED 25, REJILA MANZIL, (KATTILVILA VEETTIL), BRAMAPURI, MUDAPURAM, KIZHUVILAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **5. UMAR SHEREEF, S/O. BEEMAKANNU,** - **AGED 23, BEEMA MANZIL, KPXV-341, DEESENTMUKKU,BRAMAPURI, MUDAPURAM, KIZHUVILAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **6. MUHAMMED RIZE,S/O. NAZER, AGED 18, CHARUVILA VEEDU, (JAZMIN MANZIL) NES BLOCK, DEESENTMUKKU, MUDAPURAM, KIZHUVILAM,** **THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **7. SHINE, S/O. NAZER, AGED 23, KPXV-206, KATTILVILA VEEDU, DEESENTMUKKU, MUDAPURAM, KIZHUVILAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **2/-** **-2-** ## **CRL.M.C.NO.4784/2016** ## **8. AADIL MUHAMMED,** **S/O. SAINUDEEN, AGED 21, NAZIYA MANZIL, KP KV-78, DEESENTMUKKU, KALLUPALAM, MUDAPURAM, KIZHUVILAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** ## **9. SHIRAZ,** **SAIDHALABDEEN, AGED 20, KATTILVIA VEEDU, DEESENTMUKKU, MUDAPURAM, KIZHUVILAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **10. MUHAMMED NOFAL, SON OF UMRUL FAROOQ, AGED 21, PUTHUVAL VEETIL, KP XV-244, NEAR VILLAGE OFFICE, DEESENTMUKKU, MUDAPURAM, KIZHUVILAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** ## **11. AJMAL KHAN,** **S/O. SAIDALI, AGED 19, POOVAR MANZIL, DEESENTMUKKU, MUDAPURAM, KIZHUVILAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P** **RESPONDENT(S)/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT, INJURED & STATE. : ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. DHANUS B.CHANDRAN, S/O. BHUVANACHANDRAN, AGED 22, INDRADHANUS, PALACE NAGAR,** **B53, KAZHAKUTTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **2. RAHUL, S/O. RAJU, AGED 20, RAHUL NIVAS, PULIMATH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **3. MUHAMMED SHA, S/O. JAHAMGIR, AGED 21, RAMEESA MANZIL, VISHNU MANGALAM,MANJAMALA P.O.,** **THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **4. NOUFAL, S/O. ASHRAF, AGED 21, NOUFAL MANZIL, PALLIMUKKU, ALAMCODE P.O.,** **THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **5. SREERAJ, S/O. SREEKANDAN NAIR, AGED 21, VALIYAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, KADUVAYIL, KATTUMPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **3/-** **-3-** ## **CRL.M.C.NO.4784/2016** ## **6. STATE OF KERALA,** **REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ATTINGAL POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **R1 TO R5 BY ADV. SRI.SHAHIM BIN AZIZ R6 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. PUSHPALATHA.M.K.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** ## **Crl.MC.No. 4784 of 2016 () -------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:** ## **--------------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 419/2016 OF ATTINGAL POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **ANNEXURE B CERTIFIED COPY OF THE REPORT IN CRIME NO.419/2016 OF ATTINGAL POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **ANNEXURE C ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 26.07.2016 EXECUTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT.** - **ANNEXURE D ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 26.07.2016 EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT** - **ANNEXURE E ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 26.07.2016 EXECUTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT** - **ANNEXURE F ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 26.07.2016 EXECUTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT** - **ANNEXURE G. ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 26.07.2016 EXECUTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:** ## **NIL** **---------------------------------------------** ## **/TRUE COPY/** ## **P.A.TO JUDGE** **sts** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 4784 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 16[th] August, 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **ORDER** - 1.The petitioners herein are accused 1 to 11 in Crime No.419 of 2016 of Attingal Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 341, 324, 326 and 307 of the IPC. Respondents 1 to 5 are the victims. - 2.The prosecution allegation is that in the course of a cricket match on 23.2.2016, there occurred an altercation between the parties and severe injuries were inflicted on the respondents 1 to 5 by the petitioners allegedly with weapons. - 3.I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, the respondents 1 to 5 and also the learned Crl.M.C. No. 4784 of 2016 -2- Public Prosecutor. - 4.It is submitted that disputes have been amicably resolved and the parties are living in peace and harmony. The prayer in this petition is to permit them to continue as such by quashing the proceedings. Petitioners pray that an opportunity to redeem themselves be granted and they be permitted to move on with their life as reformed human beings. - 5.Separate affidavits have been filed by respondents 1 to 5 wherein they assert that they have settled the matter with the petitioners herein and they have no objection in terminating the proceedings on its basis. Both sides rely on the decision of the Apex Court in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab** ( 2012 (4) KLT 108) to advance their contentions. - 6.The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that offence under Section 307 of the IPC cannot be said Crl.M.C. No. 4784 of 2016 -3- to be purely private. However it is submitted that no other cases of heinous nature are reported against the petitioners. 7. In **Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr. (2014) 6 SCC 466),** the Apex Court has held that even in cases where Section 307 of the IPC has been incorporated, if the injuries inflicted are not serious, the settlement arrived at between the parties can be taken note of and the proceedings can be quashed in exercise of the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”). In the instant case the discharge card issued by the Consulting Medical Officer of the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram in respect of the 1[st] respondent is handed over. He is the person who had sustained serious injuries. It is borne out that only one injury was inflicted on the occipital region and perusal of the medical Crl.M.C. No. 4784 of 2016 -4- certificate does not reveal that the said injury was serious. He was discharged on the same day itself. 8.I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made across the Bar and I have also gone through the materials on record. It appears that the offence is entirely personal in nature and do not affect public peace or tranquility. In a case such as the instant one, even if the prosecution is allowed to continue, it would not serve any purpose as the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. It can only result in putting the _de facto_ complainant and the accused to unwanted oppression and prejudice. Settlement will augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony. I am of the view that proceedings can justifiably be quashed invoking the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure A FIR and Crl.M.C. No. 4784 of 2016 -5- all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners in Crime No. 419 of 2016 of Attingal Police Station are quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE** kp/-17.8.16