Jaleel and others v. State of Kerala and Joshi P.M.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** ## **THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938** ## **Crl.MC.No. 7546 of 2016 ()** ## **---------------------------** ## **CRIME NO. 1056/2016 OF KUNNAMANGALAM POLICE STATION , KOZHIKODE** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **-------------** **1. JALEEL, S/O.KASSIM, AGED 27 YEARS, KOIPAKATTIL HOUSE, KALANTHODE, CHATHAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE.** **2. HAMZA, AGED 52 YEARS, KOIPAKATTIL HOUSE, KALANTHODE, CHATHAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE.** **3. SHAHEERSHAD.T.P., S/O.ASHRAF.T.P., C/O.JALEEL, KOIPAKATTIL HOUSE, KALANTHODE, CHATHAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE.** **4. BASHEER.T.P., S/O.HAMZA, THATHAMMAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KALANTHODE, CHATHAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE.** **5. MUHAMMED SHAFEEQUE, S/O. UMMER, THATHAMMAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KALANTHODE, CHATHAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE.** **BY ADV. SRI.N.PRASANNAN** **RESPONDENT(S): --------------** |**1.**|**STATE OF KERALA,**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,**| ||**HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.**| ||**(ON BEHALF OF THE SI OF POLICE, KUNNAMANGALAM)**| |**2.**|**JOSHI.P.M., S/O.RAJAN, V.M.VAZHAKKOTTU HOUSE,**| ||**KANNIPARAMBU, MAVOOR VILLAGE,**| ||**MAVOOR PANCHAYAT, KOZHIKODE TALUK.**| **R2 BY ADV. SRI.G.DEVAPAL R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.T.R.RENJITH** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **CRL.M.C.No.7546/2016** ## **APPENDIX** **ANNEXURE-A1: COPY OF THE FIR AND FIRST INFORMATION STATEMENT IN CRIME NO.1056/2016 OF KUNNAMANGALAM POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE-A2: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT ARRIVED AT BETWEEN THE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT AND THE PETITIONERS DT.L24.10.2016** **ANNEXURE-A3: AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **//TRUE COPY//** **PA TO JUDGE** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.7546 of 2016** ## **----------------------------------------Dated this the 8[th] day of December, 2016** ## **O R D E R ~~~~~~~** - 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 in Crime No.1056 of 2016 of Kunnamangalam Police Station registered at the instance of the 2[nd] respondent herein alleging offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326, 294(b) and 506(ii) read with Section 149 of the IPC. - 3.The crux of the prosecution allegation is that, on 18.10.2016 at about 7.35 p.m., the petitioners herein wrongfully restrained the 2[nd] respondent and thereafter **Crl.M.C.7546/2016** **2** assaulted him with weapons causing injuries. - 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 **Crl.M.C.7546/2016** **3** 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 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 **Crl.M.C.7546/2016** **4** ## 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_ 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 **Crl.M.C.7546/2016** **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. 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. In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A FIR in Crime No.1056 of 2016 of the Kunnamangalam Police Station and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners are quashed. ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE** ps/9/12/2016