Hamsa and others v. State of Kerala and AbooBakkar

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
Judgment Date: 2016-10-21
Court Decision / Holding: Petition allowed. Annexure A1 FIR No. 1242 of 2015 and all further proceedings are quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
Final Disposition: FIR and proceedings quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Hamsa
Faizal
Shihab
Irfan
Nishad
Yakoob
Saidalavi
Majeed Panthera
Rafeeq M
Aneesh

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam (representing Sub Inspector of Tirurangadi Police Station)
ABOOBAKKAR

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. K.P. Sudheer

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Arun Mathew Vadakkan
• Sri. T.R. Renjith, Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 CrPC filed by ten accused challenging the proceedings in Crime No. 1242 of 2015 of Tirurangadi Police Station. The petitioners contend that a civil dispute over a pathway, which culminated in O.S. No. 17/2010 before the Munsiff, Parappanangadi, has been amicably resolved, and that the pendency of criminal proceedings would rekindle discord. Annexure A3 sets out a settlement between the parties withdrawing all pending civil and criminal disputes, and Annexure A4 is an affidavit by the second respondent affirming no acrimony. The State and the 2nd respondent concede there is no objection to quashing in view of the settlement. The petitioner’s counsel relies on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another to emphasize that the High Court’s inherent power under 482 is not confined to quashing within Section 320, and can be exercised in disputes with civil flavour where settlements exist. Narinder Singh and Rajesh Kamath J. guidelines are cited. After evaluating the circumstances, the Court finds the alleged offences not grave and that continued prosecution would be futile; it would serve public interest to conserve resources and preserve peace. Accordingly, the court allows the petition and quashes the FIR and all proceedings.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of CrPCSections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 308, 506 r/w 149 IPCSection 149 IPCSection 320 CrPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 10 SCC 303 – High Court power under Section 482 can quash even where not limited to Section 320 and in cases with civil flavour or settlements between private parties.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab – Guidelines on quashing under Section 482.
Rajesh Kamath J. and Others v. Mohana Kurup and Others – Additional guidelines on Section 482 quashing.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners, led by counsel for the accused, submit that a dispute over a pathway had given rise to criminal cases. With the parties resolving all civil and criminal disputes by a settlement (Annexure A3) and an accompanying affidavit (Annexure A4) indicating no acrimony, the continuation of proceedings would undermine peace and harmony. The court's exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 is warranted to quash, given the settlement and the non-serious nature of the offences.

Contentions of Respondents

The State and the 2nd respondent concede that the disputes have been settled and have no serious objections to quashing, as this would promote peace and harmony. The proceedings are not required to proceed in light of the settlement.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another	2012 (10) SCC 303	Positive	Cited to support that High Court's 482 powers extend beyond Section 320 and may be based on settlements in civil-flavour disputes.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	Not specified in document	Positive	Cited for guidelines on 482-based quashing in settlement contexts.
Rajesh Kamath J. and Others v. Mohana Kurup and Others	AIR 2016 SC 2452	Positive	Cited as part of the guidelines on quashing in settlement scenarios.

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 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/29TH ASWINA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 6034 of 2016 () ---------------------------** **CRIME NO. 1242/2015 OF THIRURANGADI POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM** **PETITIONER(S): -------------** ## **1. HAMSA, AGED 32 YEARS** **S/O.SAIDALAVI, MACHINGAL HOUSE, PALATHINGAL - PALLIPPADI, PANTHARANGADI POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN: 676 306.** **2. FAIZAL, AGED 32 YEARS S/O.KUNHAHAMMAD, MACHINGAL HOUSE,PANTHARANGADI POST, THRIKKULAM, PALLIPADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN: 676 306.** **3. SHIHAB, AGED 27 YEARS** **S/O.SAIDALAVI, KUTTASSERY HOUSE, PANTHARANGADI POST, THRIKKULAM, PALLIPADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN: 676 306.** **4. IRFAN, AGED 31 YEARS S/O.KUNHIPOKKER, MUDAYAMPILAKKAL HOUSE, P.O.ULLANAM, PALATHINGAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **5. NISHAD, AGED 41 YEARS S/O.BEERAN, MOOZHIKKAL VEEDU, PANTHARANGADI POST, PALLIPPADI - THRIKKULAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT DISTRICT, PIN: 676 306.** **CONTD...** **:2:** ## **Crl.MC.No. 6034 of 2016 () ---------------------------** ## **6. YAKOOB, AGED 37 YEARS** **S/O.SAIDALAVI, MANCHINGAL HOUSE PANTHARANGADI POST, PALLIPPADI - THRIKKULAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT DISTRICT, PIN: 676 306.** **7. SAIDALAVI, AGED 61 YEARS S/O.MAMMADU, MACHINGAL HOUSE, PANTHARANGADI POST, THRIKKULAM-PALLIPPADI , MALAPPURAM DISTRICT DISTRICT, PIN: 676 306.** ## **8. MAJEED PANTHERA, AGED 53 YEARS** **S/O.MOHAMMED, PANTHERA HOUSE, THRIKKULAM-PALLIPPADI , MALAPPURAM DISTRICT DISTRICT, PIN: 676 306.** **9. RAFEEQ M, AGED 42 YEARS S/O.ABDUL SAMAD, MACHINGAL HOUSE, THRIKKULAM-PALLIPPADI , PANTHARANGADI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT DISTRICT, PIN: 676 306.** **10. ANEESH, AGED 31 YEARS S/O.VALAYUDHAN, PALAMADATHIL HOUSE, PANTHARANGADI POST, THRIKKULAM, PALLIPPADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN: 676 306.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** **------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRUANGADI POLICE STATION,** **CONTD...** **:3:** **Crl.MC.No. 6034 of 2016 ()** **---------------------------** **TIRURANGADI - 676 306, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** ## **2. ABOOBAKKAR, AGED 44 YEARS** **S/O.MOHAMMAD, POOCHENGAL KUNNATH, PANTHARANGADI POST, THRIKKULAM, PALLIPPADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN: 676 306.** **R2 BY ADV. SRI.ARUN MATHEW VADAKKAN R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,SRI.T.R.RENJITH** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **CONTD...** ## **:4:** **Crl.MC.No. 6034 of 2016 () ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-----------------------** **ANNEXURE AI CERTIFIED COPY OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORT DATED 19/5/2015 IN CRIME NO.1242/2015 OF TIRURANGADI POLICE STATION** **ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF PLAINT DATED 12/1/2010 IN O.S NO.17/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF;S COURT, PARAPPANAGADI** **ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 24/9/2015 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PARTIES** **ANNEXURE A4 AFFIDAVIT DATED 27/8/2016 EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL -----------------------** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **SKS** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J. ---------------------------------Crl. M.C. No. 6034 of 2016 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 21[st] day of October, 2016** ## **O R D E R** - 1.This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Code') has been preferred by the petitioners herein, who are the accused Nos. 1 and 10 for quashing the proceedings pending against them in Crime No. 1242 of 2015 of Tirurangadi Police Station. Aforesaid crime has been registered at the instance of the 2[nd] respondent herein alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 308, 506 r/w Section 149 of the IPC. - 2.The prosecution allegation is that, on 17.09.2015 at 7.00 pm, the petitioners wrongfully restrained the 2[nd] respondent and thereafter assaulted him with weapons causing injuries. - 3.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the **Crl. M.C. No. 6034 of 2016** -2- petitioner, the 2[nd] respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor. It is submitted that there was a dispute concerning a pathway which led to the institution of O.S.No.117 of 2010 before the Court of the Munsiff, Parappanangadi. As an aftermath to the civil proceedings, several criminal cases happened to be registered against the rival parties. Finally, at the instance of mediators and well-wishers, all pending disputes were settled and the parties are living in peace and harmony. It is urged that the pendency of the criminal proceedings will fuel fresh disputes and is likely to disturb the amity between the parties. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the 2[nd] respondent relies on Annexure-A3 settlement agreement wherein both the parties have agreed that all pending civil and criminal disputes will be withdrawn. 4.Learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent refers to Annexure-A4 affidavit sworn to by him and submits that **Crl. M.C. No. 6034 of 2016** -3- no acrimony exists between the parties. According to the learned counsel, the 2[nd] respondent has no objection in quashing the proceedings. - 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 on instructions has submitted that the disputes have been resolved and in view of Annexure-A4, the State has no serious objections in quashing the proceedings as it would bring about peace and harmony between the rival parties. - 7.In **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another** [2012 (10)SCC 303], the Apex Court has crystalised the position in respect of the powers vested in the High Court under S.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to quash criminal proceedings. It was held that the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, **Crl. M.C. No. 6034 of 2016** -4- is not limited to quashing proceedings within the ambit and scope of Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The three - Judge Bench in the above case, clearly expounded, that quashing of criminal proceedings under S.482 of the Criminal Procedure 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 Criminal Procedure 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, the parties should have resolved their entire dispute by themselves, mutually. Further, guidelines were issued by the Apex Court in **Narinder** **Crl. M.C. No. 6034 of 2016** -5- **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 respondent No.2 has 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. Further more, settlement will augur well for the interest for the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony. 9.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 **Crl. M.C. No. 6034 of 2016** -6- the Code to quash the proceedings. In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A1 FIR in Crime No. 1242 of 2015 of Tirurangadi Police Station and all proceedings pursuant thereto are quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE** SKS //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE