High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2012-06-12Quashed

Jaseer K.K. and others v. State of Kerala and Shiju

Case / Petition Number:CRL.M.C.No.1777/2012 (S.C. No.378/2006)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A.M. Shaffique
Thomas P. Joseph
Judgment Date: 2012-06-12
Court Decision / Holding: All proceedings against the petitioners in LP.72/2006 before JFCM Court-I, Kannur and SC No.378/2006 before the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc III), Thalassery arising from Crime No.199/2005 of Kannur Town Police Station are quashed.
Final Disposition: Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Jaseer K.K.
V.P. Sainudhin
Mashaheer
K. Afsal
K. Sulaiman
V.P. Kabeer
M.K. Nurudheen
K. Faisal

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Shiju S/O Govindan, Mandhambeth House, Puzhathi Amsom/Desom, Athazhakunnu, Kannur District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. C.K. Sreejith

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor Sri Noushad Thottathil
• Sri Georgie Simon

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Misc. Case (Crl.M.C. No.1777 of 2012) filed in the Kerala High Court seeking to quash proceedings arising from Crime No.199/2005 of Kannur Town Police Station, pending as SC No.378/2006 before the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc III), Thalassery, and LP No.72/2006 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kannur. Petitioners, eight accused, contend that the entire proceedings must be quashed under Section 482 CrPC in light of a settlement with the de facto complainant (Shiju) and because continuation would cause unnecessary hardship. The FIR (Annexure A1) and final report (Annexure A2) are in the record, with Annexure A3 being an affidavit by the de facto complainant stating no-longer-prosecuting intent. Although several offences under IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323 and 308 read with 149 are non-compoundable, the Court relies on Supreme Court precedents (Joshi v. State of Haryana; Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab; Nikhil Merchant v. CBI; Manoj Sharma v. State) to permit quashing in appropriate circumstances. Given the settled compromise and lack of prosecution intent, continuing the case would be fruitless. The Court quashes all proceedings against the petitioners, disposing of Crl.M.C. 1777/2012 in final terms. The judgment is by a single judge, A.M. Shaffique, on 12-06-2012.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal ProcedureSections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323 and 308 read with Section 149 of IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC in settled circumstances (as supported by Supreme Court precedents)
Avoidance of unnecessary hardship to the de facto complainant/injured
Settled principle that even non-compoundable offences may be quashed in appropriate circumstances where probity of the process and interest of justice require it

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that while certain offences cited in the FIR are non-compoundable, the de facto complainant has entered into a settlement and does not wish to prosecute, as evidenced by Annexure A3. They rely on Joshi v. State of Haryana, Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, Nikhil Merchant v. CBI, and Manoj Sharma v. State, arguing that CrPC Section 482 powers permit quashing to avoid futile prosecution and hardship when justice so requires.

Contentions of Respondents

The State and the de facto complainant argue that despite some non-compoundable offences, quashing should not be automatic. They contend that the cited Supreme Court decisions apply only in specific circumstances and that the continuation of proceedings ensures the integrity of investigation and the rule of law.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Joshi v. State of Haryana	2003(2)KLT 1062(SC)	Positive	Cited as authority supporting quashing in settled circumstances where the complainant does not wish to prosecute and overall justice favors ending the case.
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab	AIR 2008(SC) 1969	Positive	Cited to justify quashing under certain circumstances despite non-compoundable offences.
Nikhil Merchant v. C.B.I	2008(3)KLT 769	Positive	Cited in support of quashing when settled circumstances exist and prosecution would be unnecessary harassment.
Manoj Sharma v. State	2008(4)KLT 417	Positive	Cited as authority for quashing in settled circumstances; supports the petition.

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 Jaseer K.K. and others v. State of Kerala and Shiju 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 A.M.SHAFFIQUE** **TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/22ND JYAISHTA 1934** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1777 of 2012** **---------------------------------[S.C. NO.378/2006 OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, ADHOC-III, THALASSERY, L.P.C. NO.72/2006 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE - COURT NO.I, KANNUR, CRIME NO.199/2005 OF KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION]** **...........** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 8:** **-----------------------------------------------------** **1. JASEER K.K., S/O.JAMAL MAMMU, AGED 29 YEARS, LATHEEFA NIVAS, KOTTALI POST, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **2. V.P.SAINUDHIN, S/O.HAMEED,AGED 29 YEARS, PUZHATHI AMSOM/DESOM, ATHAZHAKUNNU, KOTTALI POST, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **3. MASHAHEER, S/O.MAHAMOOD,AGED 27 YEARS, PUZHATHI AMSOM/DESOM, ATHAZHAKUNNU, KOTTALI POST, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **4. K.AFSAL, S/O.ABDUL AZEEZ,AGED 30 YEARS, PUZHATHI AMSOM/DESOM, ATHAZHAKUNNU, KOTTALI POST, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **5. K.SULAIMAN, S/O.ABOOBACKER,AGED 29 YEARS, PUZHATHI AMSOM/DESOM, ATHAZHAKUNNU, KOTTALI POST, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **6. V.P.KABEER, S/O.MUSTAFA,AGED 28 YEARS, PUZHATHI AMSOM/DESOM, ATHAZHAKUNNU, KOTTALI POST, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **7. M.K.NURUDHEEN, S/O.SATHAR, AGED 28 YEARS,, PUZHATHI AMSOM/DESOM, ATHAZHAKUNNU, KOTTALI POST, KANNUR DISTRICT.** ## **CRL.M.C. NO.1777/2012:** **8. K.FAISAL, S/O.ABDUL AZEEZ,AGED 30 YEARS, PUZHATHI AMSOM/DESOM, ATHAZHAKUNNU, KOTTALI POST, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH.** ## **RESPONDENTS/ STATE & DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT :** **------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** ## **2. SHIJU, AGED 29 YEARS,** **S/O.GOVINDAN, MANDHAMBETH HOUSE, PUZHATHI AMSOM/DESOM, ATHAZHAKUNNU, KOTTALI POST, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. NOUSHAD THOTTATHIL, R2 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGIE SIMON.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP ADMISSION ON 12-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **CRL.M.C. NO.1777/2012:** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:** **ANNEXURE A1: COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.199/2005 OF KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF FINAL REPORT FILED BY THE POLICE BEFORE THE LEARNED MAGISTRATE. ANNEXURE A3: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE R.2.** ## **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE.** **Prv.** ## **A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * * *** Crl.M.C.No. 1777 of 2012 **==> picture [178 x 2] intentionally omitted <==** Dated this the 12[th] day of June 2012 ## **O R D E R** This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing all proceedings against the petitioners in L.P.No.72 of 2006 on the file of JFCM Court-I, Kannur and S.C.No.378 of 2006 pending before the Additional Sessions Court- (Adhoc III) Thalasserry arising from Crime No.199 of 2005 of Kannur Town Police Station. 2. It is alleged that the petitioners were involved in commission of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323 and 308 read with section 149 of I.P.C. Annexure AI is the FIR and A2 Final Report. The case against the 1[st] accused was split up as L.P.No.72/2006. 3. The de-facto complainant/2[nd] respondent has filed an affidavit as Annexure A3 stating that the matter has been settled between the parties and he does not intend to prosecute the case against the petitioners. 4. Though certain offences are not compoundable, in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in **Joshi v. State of** Crl.M.C..No.1777/12 2 **Haryana [2003(2)KLT 1062(SC)]Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [AIR 2008 (S.C.) 1969], Nikhil Merchant v. C.B.I [2008(3) KLT 769]** and **Manoj Sharma v. State [2008 (4) KLT 417]** , the prosecution against the accused can be quashed under certain circumstances. 5. As matters stand settled as is evident from the affidavit and especially in view of the fact that the de facto complainant/ injured does not intend to proceed with the case, there is no point in prosecuting the case any further and it will lead to unnecessary hardship to the de facto complainant/ injured. Hence the principles adopted in the above judgments can be applied to the facts of this case also. 6. In the above circumstances, all proceedings against the petitioners in L.P.No.72 of 2006 on the file of JFCM Court-I, Kannur and S.C.No.378 of 2006 pending before the Additional Sessions Court- (Adhoc III) Thalasserry arising from Crime No.199 of 2005 of Kannur Town Police Station are quashed. Crl.M.C is disposed of as above. (sd/-) **(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)** jsr Crl.M.C..No.1777/12 3 Crl.M.C..No.1777/12 4 Crl.M.C..No.1777/12 5 ## **THOMAS.P.JOSEPH,J.** Crl.M.C.No. of 200 ORDER 19/01/2011