High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-12-20Petition allowed; quashed the proceedings again...

Hamza and Sakeer Hussain v. State of Kerala and Shafee

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C. No. 7675 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date: 2016-12-20
Court Decision / Holding: This petition is allowed. Annexure-A final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners in C.C. No. 915 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class-II, Perinthalmanna are quashed.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; quashed the proceedings against the petitioners; C.C. 915/2015 quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Hamza, aged 28 years, S/o Ummer, Koonamkutty House, Chemmalassery PO, Parakkadavu, Malappuram
Sakeer Hussain, aged 30 years, S/o Ummer, Koonamkutty House, Chemmalassery PO, Parakkadavu, Malappuram

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, through Station House Officer, Kolathur Police Station, Malappuram District
Shafee aged 20 years, S/o Sheriff, Thadathilparambil House, Manangad, Valapuram, Malappuram

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Mansoor B.H.

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam (for State)
• Adv. C.M. Kampppu (for Respondent 2 - Shafee)
• Adv. Amjath Ali (Public Prosecutor for Respondent 1 - State)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case concerns an application under Section 482 CrPC by Hamza and Sakeer Hussain seeking to quash proceedings in CC 915/2015 of JMFC Perinthalmanna arising from Malappuram crime no. 369/2013. The petitioners were charged under sections 341, 323, and 294(b) IPC read with section 34 for restraining and assaulting the second respondent on 12-10-2013, in a dispute rooted in longstanding enmity. The respondents include the State represented by the Public Prosecutor and the second respondent, Shafee. The petition asserts that the dispute is purely personal and a settlement has been reached; continuing prosecution would be a waste of time, and quashing would promote peace and harmony. The 2nd respondent filed an affidavit of settlement, which the Public Prosecutor noted with reservations, but did not oppose quashing in light of the amicable settlement. The petition relies on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, which hold that courts may quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases to secure ends of justice and prevent abuse of process where there is a settlement. The High Court concluded the offence is not grave, public peace is not adversely affected, and continuation would be futile, thus invoking Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings. The order allows the petition and quashes the proceedings in CC 915/2015.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal ProcedureSections 341, 323, 294(b) read with Section 34 of the IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ends of justice
Abuse of the process of law
Amicable settlement can justify quashing of proceedings by the High Court under 482 CrPC

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants submit that this is a case worth ending through quashing under Section 482 CrPC in light of the amicable settlement between the victim and the accused. They emphasize that the dispute is personal, not involving public peace, and that continuing the prosecution would be a misuse of judicial resources and would undermine the ends of justice. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, they contend that the High Court may quash criminal proceedings where settlement promotes peace and prevents abuse of process, provided the ends of justice are served.

Contentions of Respondents

The State, through the Public Prosecutor, cautions against using extraordinary powers in a case of this nature but does not oppose the settlement entirely. The Respondents urge careful scrutiny of whether quashing would align with ends of justice and whether abuse of process would be prevented. They rely on the jurisprudence cited (Gian Singh and Narinder Singh) to support the notion that quashing may be appropriate where settlement and public interest align, but stress the need to assess the gravity of the offence and its impact on society.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 (10) SCC 303	Positive	Cited to support that the High Court can quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases when there is an amicable settlement between victim and accused and where it serves ends of justice, even if the offence is not grave.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	2014 (6) SCC 466	Positive	Cited to reiterate that ends of justice or prevention of abuse of process are guiding factors in exercising 482 CrPC to quash proceedings in light of 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 Hamza and Sakeer Hussain v. State of Kerala and Shafee 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 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 7675 of 2016 () --------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 915/2015 of J.M.F.C.II,PERINTHALMANNA CRIME NO. 369/2013 OF KOLATHUR POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM** **PETITIONER(S):** **-------------** |**1**|**HAMZA, AGED 28 YEARS,**| |---|---| ||**S/O. UMMER, KOONAMKUTTY HOUSE,**| ||**CHEMMALASSERY PO, PARAKKADAVU, MALAPPURAM**| |**2**|**SAKEER HUSSAIN, AGED 30 YEARS**| ||**S/O. UMMER, KOONAMKUTTY HOUSE,**| ||**CHEMMALASSERY PO, PARAKADAVU, MALAPPURAM**| **BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H.** **RESPONDENT(S):** |**RESPONDENT(S):**|**RESPONDENT(S):**| |---|---| |**--------------**|| |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY**| ||**PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,**| ||**ERNAKULAM, THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER**| ||**KOLATHUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT**| |**2**|**SHAFEEK AGED 20 YEARS, S/O. SHERIFF,**| ||**THADATHILPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANANGAD,**| ||**VALAPURAM.MALAPPURAM**| ||**R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU**| ||**R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. AMJATH ALI**| **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.MC.No. 7675 of 2016 () ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT:-** **-----------------------** **ANNEXURE A COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME No.369/2013 OF KOLATHUR POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE B AFFIDAVIT OF SETTLEMENT FILED BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/SECOND RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------NIL** // True copy // PA to Judge das ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## Crl.M.C. No. 7675 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 20[th] December, 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **ORDER** - 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 and 2 in C.C.No.915 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of - 1[st] Class-II, Perinthalmanna. In the aforesaid case, they stand indicted under Sections 341, 323, and 294(b) read with Section 34 of the IPC. - 3.The prosecution allegation is that on 12.10.2013 at about - 5.30 pm, owing to the previous enmity, the petitioners restrained the 2[nd] respondent and assaulted him causing injuries. - 4.Heard the submissions advanced. Crl.M.C. No.7675 of 2016 -2- - 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.In **Gian singh v. State of Punjab [** 2012 (10) SCC 303] Apex Court has laid down that in appropriate cases, the Crl.M.C. No.7675 of 2016 -3- 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.”_ 8.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:_ Crl.M.C. No.7675 of 2016 -4- _(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_ 9.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. 10.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. Crl.M.C. No.7675 of 2016 -5- In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.C.No.915 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of 1[st] Class-II, Perinthalmanna are quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE** kp/21.12.16 Crl.M.C. No.7675 of 2016 -6- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE** kp/20.12.16