High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-12-14Petition allowed; quashed final report and all ...

Jaffar and others v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No. 8256 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
Judgment Date: 2016-12-14
Court Decision / Holding: The court, after considering the circumstances, held that it is justified to exercise its extraordinary power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings. The petition is allowed, and Annexure-A final report and all proceedings in CC No. 2124/2015 are quashed.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; quashed final report and all proceedings in CC No. 2124/2015 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Hosdurg.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

JAFFAR
IRSHAD (S/O IBRAHIM)
ISHAQ
NOUSHAD K
RAFEK N.K
NIZAR N.K
JASIR
ANSAR
SHUHAIB
IRSHAD (S/O MANDALAM IBRAHIM)
SHAFEEK.M
SAVAD
UMMER
K.K. ALI @ MOHAMMEDALI
NOUFAL P
KHALEEL
RIYAS K.P
KABEER K.P

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
A.V. Ramachandran

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SRI. NIREESH MATHEW

Counsels for Respondents

• SRI. N.P.PRAJEESH R
• SRI. T.R.RENJITH

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC before the Kerala High Court, filed by accused nos. 1–9, and 11–19, challenging the ongoing proceedings in CC No. 2124 of 2015 in the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Hosdurg, arising from Crime No. 1137/2011 of Hosdurg Police Station. The accused faced charges including sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 435, 427, 506(ii), and 153A read with 149 IPC, with accusation of forming an unlawful assembly and trespass coupled with mischief. The petition highlights that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved; respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit asserting the settlement is personal and not affecting public peace, and that quashing would promote peace and harmony. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about invoking extraordinary powers but noted no other cases against the petitioners. The High Court relies on Supreme Court authorities Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, to hold that in appropriate cases, where there is a settlement and ends of justice or prevention of abuse of process, quashing may be warranted. It concludes that the offences are not grave and that quashing would best secure ends of justice. The petition is allowed and Annexure-A final report along with all proceedings in CC No. 2124/2015 are quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 CrPCSections 143, 147, 148, 452, 435, 427, 506(ii), 153A r/w Section 149 IPC

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants submit that the dispute between the parties is now settled amicably and that continuing the criminal proceedings would be unjust and contrary to the ends of justice. Citing Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, they contend that High Courts have the power to quash in cases where settlement exists and continuation would amount to abuse of process or defeat the cause of justice; the settlement has reached a stage where further prosecution serves no public interest and would perpetuate personal enmity. They urge quashing to promote peace and harmony and to avoid wastage of judicial resources.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents (State through the Public Prosecutor) oppose unconditional quashing, expressing reservations about invoking Section 482 in such a matter. They argue that the High Court should exercise caution, as the offence involves communal or public peace considerations and serious consequences; however, they acknowledge there are no other pending cases against the petitioners. The counsel for respondent No.2 reinforces the view that settlement should be weighed against the nature of the offence and the possible impact on society, and stresses that quashing should be used sparingly and only when ends of justice are clearly served.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 (10) SCC 303	Positive	The Apex Court held that a High Court may quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases where amicable settlement exists between victim and wrongdoer, if it would be unfair or contrary to the ends of justice to continue the case.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	2014 (6) SCC 466	Positive	The Court reiterated that settlement and ends of justice can justify quashing, and the High Court must determine whether continuing the proceedings would amount to abuse of process or defeat justice.

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 Jaffar and others 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 WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/23RD AGRAHAYANA, 1938 Crl.MC.No. 8256 of 2016 () --------------------------- CRIME NO. 1137/2011 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION , KASARGOD PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 9 & 11 TO 19.: --------------------------------------------- 1. JAFFAR, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. JINN IBRAHIM, ZEENATH MANZIL, KANJANHAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. IRSHAD, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. IBRAHIM, PUTHIYAKANDAM HOUSE, ` KANJANHAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3. ISHAQ, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. ISMAIL, NEAR NAVODAYA CLUB, KANJHANGAD KADAPPURAM KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 4. NOUSHAD K, - AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. MOHAMMED, KAKKAT HOUSE, KANDATHIL, KALLORAVI, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 5. RAFEEK N.K, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. ARABI, KHAMARUNNISA MANZIL, BAVA NAGAR, KANJANHAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 6. NIZAR N.K, AGED 35 YEARS, AGED 35 YEARS,S/O. ARABI, KHAMARUNNISA MANZIL, BAVA NAGAR, KANJANHAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 7. JASIR, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. MUSTHAFA, P.K. HOUSE, MURIYANAVI, KANJANHAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 8. ANSAR, AGED 24 YEARS,S/O. MUHAMMED, AAVIYIL,KANJANHAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 9. SHUHAIB, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. KUNJABDULLA, M.A. HOUSE, KALLOORAVI, MUNDATHODU, KANJANHAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 10. IRSHAD, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. MANDALAM IBRAHIM, BAVAKKAPALLI KANJANHAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 11. SHAFEEK.M, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. HUSAINAR, SHAFEEK MANZIL, BAVA NAGAR, KANJANHAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 12. SAVAD, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. SULAIMAN, KANDATHIL HOUSE, KALLOORAVI,KANJANHAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. CONTD... :2: Crl.MC.No. 8256 of 2016 () --------------------------- 13. UMMER, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. USMAN, FATHIMA QUARTERS, KALLORAVI,KANJANHAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 14. K.K. ALI @ MOHAMMEDALI, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. MOHAMMED, RUMZEENA MANZIL, KANDATHIL,KANJANHAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 15. NOUFAL P, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED, PUTHIYAKANDAM HOUSE, KANJANHAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 16. KHALEEL, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. YOUSUFF, C.H. HOUSE, AAVIYIL,KANJANHAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 17. RIYAS K.P, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. HASSAINAR, KOVVAL PURAKAL, KALLOORAVI,KANJANHAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 18. KABEER K.P, AGED 26 YEARS,S/O. HASSAINAR, KOVVAL PURAKAL, KALLOORAVI, KANJANHAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT.: ------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. A.V. RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. KOTTAN KUNHI, SAMRAJ HOUSE, MURIYANAVI, KANJANHAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. R2 BY ADV. SRI.N.P.PRAJEESH R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. T.R.RENJITH THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CONTD... **==> picture [19 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** Crl.MC.No. 8256 of 2016 () --------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.1137/2011 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION, WHICH IS FILED BEFORE THE JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -II, HOSDURG. ANNEXURE B THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 BEFORE HIS ADVOCATE AT KANJANHAD, DATED 30.9.2016. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL ----------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE SKS ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No. 8256 of 2016** ## **----------------------------------------Dated this the 14[th] day of December, 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 9, 11 to 19 in C.C. No. 2124 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Hosdurg. In the aforesaid case, they face indictment under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 435, 427, 506 (ii), 153(A) r/w Section 149 of the IPC. The accused Nos. 10 and 20 were juveniles at the time of the incident and therefore the case against them was made over to the Juvenile Justice Board. - 3.The prosecution allegation is that on 11.10.2011 at 11 pm, the petitioners herein along with the other accused had formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in Crl.M.C. No. 8256 of 2016 2 prosecution of their common object, trespassed into the house of the 2[nd] respondent herein and after assaulting him committed mischief to the tune of Rs.3,73,357/- (Rupees Three Lakh Seventy Three Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty Seven only). - 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 Crl.M.C. No. 8256 of 2016 3 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** 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_ Crl.M.C. No. 8256 of 2016 4 _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 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 Crl.M.C. No. 8256 of 2016 5 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 the Code to quash the proceedings. 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. 2124 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kasaragod are quashed. **sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE** //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE SKS