High Court of KeralaSingle JudgePetition allowed; FIR No. 733/2015 and all rela...

Hassan Haji S/o Muhammedkutty Haji; Muhammed Fazil; Muhammed Shebeer; Sadath Hassan; Muhammed Rafi v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No.5401 of 2016
Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
Judgment Date
2016-11-11
Court Decision / Holding
Quash FIR No. 733/2015 and all proceedings against the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C.; petition allowed.
Final Disposition
Petition allowed; FIR No. 733/2015 and all related proceedings quashed against the petitioners 1-5.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Hassan Haji
  • Muhammed Fazil
  • Muhammed Shebeer
  • Sadath Hassan
  • Muhammed Rafi

Respondents

  • State of Kerala rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Tirur Police Station (Crime No. 733/2015)
  • Mohammed Shanu

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • SMT.N. Dee pa (Advocate)

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri R. Krishnakumar (Cherthala) (Advocate for 2nd respondent)
  • • Sri Amjad Ali (Public Prosecutor)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court Cr.M.C. under Section 482 Cr.P.C., filed by five accused (Hassan Haji, Muhammed Fazil, Muhammed Shebeer, Sadath Hassan, and Muhammed Rafi) challenging Crime No. 733/2015 of Tirur Police Station and the accompanying proceedings in CRMC 747/2015. The offences alleged against the petitioners include IPC sections 143, 147, 149, 324, 452, and 506(i). The petition contends that the matter between the parties has been amicably resolved and that continuing with the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process and would frustrate the ends of justice, being essentially a personal dispute that does not affect public peace. The State, through the Public Prosecutor, expressed reservations about invoking Section 482 in the light of a settlement. The court invoked jurisprudence from the Supreme Court, notably Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014), to recognize that a High Court may quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases where there is a settlement between the victim and the wrongdoer and where continuing proceedings would be unjust or an abuse of process. After considering the circumstances, the judge concluded that quashing would serve ends of justice and prevent abuse of process. The petition was allowed, the FIR (Crime No. 733/2015) and all proceedings against the petitioners were quashed, promoting peace between the parties.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 CrPCIPC 143IPC 147IPC 149IPC 324IPC 452IPC 506(i)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Ends of justice
  • Abuse of process of law
  • Settlement/compromise between victim and wrongdoer (as a guiding principle)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants contended that the dispute among the parties is personal and has already been amicably settled. They argued that continuing the criminal process would amount to harassment, abuse of process, and would defeat the ends of justice. Since the incident was not of grave depravity and the dispute is resolved, quashing would promote peace and prevent needless prosecutions. They relied on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab to justify invoking the extraordinary powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to terminate the proceedings where settlement exists and ends of justice require closure.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents, through the Public Prosecutor, acknowledged the amicable settlement but urged caution against using Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash. The State noted reservations about quashing in a case involving multiple IPC sections and potential public interest concerns, emphasizing the need to ensure that the process is not misused and that due process is observed. However, the 2nd respondent submitted an affidavit highlighting the settlement and its personal nature, suggesting termination would promote peace, while the court weighs whether quashing would serve ends of justice without undermining legitimate prosecutions.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab(2012) 10 SCC 303PositiveHigh Court can quash criminal proceedings in appropriate circumstances where there is an amicable settlement between victim and offender, to secure ends of justice and avoid abuse of process.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab(2014) 6 SCC 466PositiveSettlement between parties guides the Court to secure ends of justice or prevent abuse of process, justifying quashing where appropriate.

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 Hassan Haji S/o Muhammedkutty Haji; Muhammed Fazil; Muhammed Shebeer; Sadath Hassan; Muhammed Rafi 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 FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/20TH KARTHIKA, 1938 Crl.MC.No. 5401 of 2016 () --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 747/2015 of D.C.& SESSIONS COURT,MANJERI DATED 16-05-2015 CRIME NO. 733/2015 OF TIRUR POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 5: ---------------------------- 1. HASSAN HAJI S/O. MUHAMMEDKUTTY HAJI, CHELAKKAL HOUSE, POOKAYIL PO., TIRUR TALUK. 2. MUHAMMED FAZIL, S/O. KAMMUHAJI, CHELAKKAL HOUSE, POOKAYIL PO., TIRUR TALUK. 3. MUHAMMED SHEBEER S/O. HASSAN HAJI, CHELAKKAL HOUSE, POOKAYIL PO., TIRUR TALUK. 4. SADATH HASSAN, HAMZA HAJI, PARUTHIKUNNAN HOUSE, POOKAYIL PO., TIRUR TALUK, 5. MUHAMMED RAFI S/O. KAMMUHAJI, CHELAKKAL HOUSE, POOKAYIL PO., TIRUR TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.N.DEEPA RESPONDENT(S)/STATE, COMPLAINANT & INJURED: ------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, (CRIME NO.733/2015), TIRUR POLICE STATION, REP. THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682031 CONTD... **==> picture [23 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** Crl.MC.No. 5401 of 2016 () --------------------------- 2. MOHAMMED SHANU AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED KUTTY POKKLASSERI SHANU HOUSE, POOKAYIL PO., TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM PIN-676101 R2 BY ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNAKUMAR (CHERTHALA) R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CONTD... **==> picture [23 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** Crl.MC.No. 5401 of 2016 () --------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- ANNEXURE A1: A TRUE COPY OF THE F.I STATEMENT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE TIRUR POLICE DT. 07-05-2015 ANNEXURE A2: A TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R. NO.733/2015 OF TIRUR POLICE STATION, TIRUR DT. -07-05-2015 ANNEXURE A3: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 16-05-2015 IN CRL.M.C.NO.747/2015 OF THE HON'BLE SESSIONS JUDGE, MANJERI ANNEXURE A4: A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDNE TDT. 25-01-2016 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL ----------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE SKS ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.5401 of 2016 ----------------------------------------Dated this the 11[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 5 in Crime No. 733 of 2015 of Tirur Police Station registered at the instance of the 2[nd] respondent herein for having committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 324, 452, 506 (i) of the IPC. The 2[nd] respondent herein is the son-in-law of the 1[st] petitioner. - 3.The prosecution allegation is that on 05.05.2015, at - 11.30 a.m, the petitioners in furtherance of their common intention formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, trespassed into the house of the 2[nd] respondent and thereafter attacked him with weapons and caused injuries. Crl.M.C. No. 5401 of 2016 2 ## 4.Heard the submissions advanced. 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.I have considered the submissions . - 8.In **Gian singh v. State of Punjab [** (2012) 10 SCC 303], Crl.M.C. No. 5401 of 2016 3 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 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.”_ 9.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_ Crl.M.C. No. 5401 of 2016 4 _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_ 10.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. 11.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. 5401 of 2016 5 the Code to quash the proceedings. In the result, this petition will stand allowed. AnnexureA2 FIR in Crime No. 733 of 2015 of Tirur Police Station and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners are quashed. **Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE** SKS //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE