High Court of KeralaSingle JudgePetition allowed; quashing of final report and ...

Ibrahim P. and Others v. State of Kerala, Kasaragod Police Station and Prasad

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No.4527 of 2019(E)

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date
2019-08-19
Court Decision / Holding
This petition is allowed. Annexure-A1 final report and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners, pending as CC 1657 of 2018 in the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kasaragod, are quashed.
Final Disposition
Petition allowed; quashing of final report and proceedings.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Ibrahim P., Umar Ali Shihab M.A., Muhammed Aliyar M.A., Aboobacker Siddique Ajmal, Muhiyudheen Safaf

Respondents

  • State of Kerala rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam-682 031
  • Station House Officer, Kasaragod Police Station - 671 121
  • Prasad, aged 21 years, S/O. Gangadhar an, Nayikkap, Kumbala, Kasaragod - 671 316

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri. Rahul Sasi

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri. Ramesh Chand, Public Prosecutor
  • • Sri. Nirmal V. Nair

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 CrPC filed by five petitioners-accused seeking to quash criminal proceedings pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kasaragod (C.C. No.1657 of 2018, Crime No.671/2018). The petition arises from allegations that, on 27.09.2018 at about 17:00 hours, the petitioners allegedly restrained and assaulted the 3rd respondent (Prasad) resulting in injuries, under offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 294(b), 323 and 341 read with Section 149 IPC. The petition contends that the dispute is private in nature and a compromise has been arrived at between the victim and the accused, with the victim even filing an affidavit expressing no objection to quashing the proceedings. The Public Prosecutor indicated no serious objection to quashing in view of the settlement, and the investigating officer reported that the petitioners were not involved in other crimes. The court relied on Supreme Court principles laid down in Gian Singh and others, emphasizing that inherent power under Section 482 CrPC is to prevent abuse of process and to secure ends of justice, particularly where settlement makes continuation of prosecution oppressive or prejudicial. After evaluating the injuries (not grave) and the victim’s stance, the court held that quashing would serve peace and not defeat public interest, and thus allowed the petition, quashing Annexure-A1 final report and proceedings in CC 1657 of 2018.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)Sections 143, 147, 294(b), 323, 341 read with Section 149 of IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to prevent abuse of process and to secure ends of justice; the power is to do real, complete and substantial justice.
  • When quashing based on settlement of disputes, examine whether the possibility of conviction is remote/oblique and whether continuation would cause oppression or prejudice to the parties.
  • Caution against intervention in heinous or serious offences (e.g., murder, rape, etc.) where public interest requires continuation of trial; mere inclusion of grave offences in FIR does not automatically deter quashing if ingredients are not made out.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners urge quashing under Section 482 CrPC on account of a settlement between the victim and accused. They contend the offence is private in nature, the injuries are not grave, and continued proceedings would cause oppression and prejudice. The compromise would promote peace and harmony without public interest being affected.

Contentions of Respondents

The victim (3rd respondent) has resolved disputes and submitted an affidavit showing no objection to quashing. The Public Prosecutor indicated no serious objection, and the IO noted no involvement in other crimes. The State’s position is to allow quashing where settlement and ends of justice justify it, particularly given private nature of the dispute and absence of grave injuries.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr[(2012) 10 SCC 303]PositiveEstablishes the framework for using inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice, including consideration of settlement as a factor.
Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and Another[(2013) 4 SCC 58]PositiveFurther elaborates the parameters for exercising inherent power in quashing based on settlements.
Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another[(2014) 6 SCC 466]PositiveAffirms the balancing approach between private settlement and public interest in Section 482 applications.
Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another[(2017) 9 SCC 641]PositiveCitts the scope and limits of the exercise of inherent power with emphasis on ends of justice.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and others[(2019) 4 SCALE 200]PositiveReiterates caution against quashing in serious offences and highlights the need to assess public interest and the likelihood of conviction.

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 Ibrahim P. and Others v. State of Kerala, Kasaragod Police Station and Prasad 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 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 28TH SRAVANA, 1941** ## **Crl.MC.No.4527 OF 2019(E)** **CC 1657/2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KASARAGOD CRIME NO.671/2018 OF Kasaragod Police Station, Kasargod** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 5:** - **1 IBRAHIM.P, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. ALIKUNHI, POOTHRAKALA, ETHADUKKA P.O, KUMBADAJE VILLAGE, KASARAGOD 671 316.** - **2 UMMER ALI SHIHAB M.A, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. ABOOBACKER,PUNDHOORMULLA HOUSE, NEKRAJE, CHENKALA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD 671 316.** - **3 MUHAMMED ALIYAR M.A, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. ABDULLAH, MALIKAYYIL HOUSE, ARAYALTHARA, POOCHAKAD, KIKAN P.O, PALLIKKARA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD 671 318.** - **4 ABOOBACKER SIDDIQUE AJMAL, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMEDALI, METHADI HOUSE, PAIKA, NEAR PAIKA MAHAN NEKRAJE P.O., NEKRAJE VILLAGE, KASARAGOD 671 316.** - **5 MUHIYUDHEEN SAFAF, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED, BISMILLAH MANZIL, CHULIYANDE HOUSE, PACHAMBALLAM, BANDIYOD, HENDOOR P.O, KUMBANDOOR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD 671 316.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.RAHUL SASI** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.** - **2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KASARAGOD POLICE STATION - 671 121.** **Crl.MC.No.4527 OF 2019(E)** **2** **3 PRASAD, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. GANGADHARAN, NAYIKKAP, KUMBALA, KASARAGOD - 671 316.** **R3 BY ADV. NIRMAL V NAIR** **R1 BY SRI. RAMESH CHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.MC.No.4527 OF 2019(E)** **3** ## **ORDER** Invoking the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the Code”, for short), the petitioners have approached this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them by the 3[rd] respondent herein, which is now pending on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kasaragod, as C.C. No.1657 of 2018. In the above proceeding, they face indictment for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 294(b), 323 and 341 read with Section 149 of the IPC. 2. From the prosecution records, it is discernible that the allegation against the petitioners is that on 27.09.2018 at about 17.00 hours, the petitioners wrongfully restrained the 3[rd] respondent and assaulted him causing injuries. 3. Heard Sri.Rahul Sasi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.Nirmal V. Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the 3[rd] respondent, and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Sri. Nirmal V. Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the 3[rd] respondent, submitted that after much deliberations, the victim has resolved his disputes and differences with the petitioners and he has now decided that the continuance of criminal proceedings is an unwanted exercise. He refers to the affidavit filed by the victim before this Court and asserts that he has no objection **Crl.MC.No.4527 OF 2019(E)** **4** in bringing the prosecution proceedings to a premature termination. 5. Sri.Rahul Sasi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, urged that in view of the compromise arrived at between the victim and the offenders, the possibility of conviction is bleak and the continuation of the criminal proceedings will only inure to put both the parties to oppression and prejudice. Both sides submit that the wrong is basically private in nature and no public interest is involved. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the investigating officer has reported that the petitioners are not involved in any other crimes. It is further submitted that the State has no serious objection in quashing the proceedings against them in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties. 7. I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the records. 8. The factors that are to be borne while exercising the powers conferred on this Court by Section 482 of the Code in the context of considering a prayer for quashing criminal proceedings on the basis of resolution of disputes between the offender and the victim have been laid down by the Apex Court in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr** . [(2012) 10 SCC 303]; **Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and Another** [(2013) 4 **Crl.MC.No.4527 OF 2019(E)** **5** SCC 58]; **Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another** [(2014) 6 SCC 466]; **Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another** [(2017) 9 SCC 641] and **State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and others** , [(2019) 4 SCALE 200]. It was held that the inherent jurisdiction vested in the High Court, as recognized and preserved by Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, is primarily to prevent abuse of the process of court or to secure the ends of justice. The guiding light behind the exercise of inherent power is to do real, complete and substantial justice. It was also held that while examining the prayer for quashing of a non compoundable offence, on the basis of settlement of the dispute between the wrongful doer and the victim, this Court must necessarily consider whether the possibility of conviction is remote and oblique and further as to whether the continuation of the criminal proceedings would lead to oppression and prejudice. The courts were reminded that the antecedents of the accused, possible lack of bona fides, his past conduct, including his earlier abscondance, and as to how he had managed to enter into a compromise with the victim are some of the factors which are to reckoned while exercising this extraordinary power. The Apex Court had also cautioned that this Court, when called upon to exercise the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C to bring the criminal case to an end on the basis of settlement, must steer clear of intervention in heinous or serious offences, including those involving mental depravity, as indeed economic offences affecting **Crl.MC.No.4527 OF 2019(E)** **6** the financial and economic well being of the State, such as murder, attempt to murder, extortion, forgery, rape, dacoity, financial or economic frauds, cases under Arms Act, etc. Those offences were held as having a tendency to have a serious impact upon the society and continuation of trial thereof is essential due to overriding element of public interest. It was also held that the mere fact that the police have incorporated a grave offence in the FIR or the final report would not be a deterrent if the records reveal that the ingredients of the offence are not made out. 9. In the light of the above principles, I have perused the prosecution records. The injuries allegedly inflicted by the petitioners cannot be said to be grave and serious having ingredients of extreme mental depravity. I have also noted the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that the statement of the victim has been recorded by the investigating officer and that he has asserted that it is not in his best interest that the prosecution proceedings continue. Having considered the case in hand on the touchstone of the aforementioned parameters, I am of the view that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace. 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 victim 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 **Crl.MC.No.4527 OF 2019(E)** **7** peace and harmony. In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-A1 final report and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.C. No.1657 of 2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kasaragod, are quashed. **SD/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE** DSV/19.8.19 **Crl.MC.No.4527 OF 2019(E)** **8** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 671 OF 2018 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION ANNEXURE A2 AFFIDAVIT DATED 19-06-2019 SUBMITTED BY 3RD RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A.TO JUDGE**