Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed

Javeed, Yusuf and Faizal v. Abdul Latheef and State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No. 4071 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
Judgment Date
2016-09-22
Court Decision / Holding
The criminal proceedings against the petitioners in LPC 117/2009 are quashed under the court's inherent powers (Section 482 CrPC) in light of the compromise and the victim's absolution, as continued proceedings would be futile and would defeat the ends of justice.
Final Disposition
Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Javeed
  • Yusuf
  • Faizal

Respondents

  • Abdul Latheef
  • State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri. T.B. Shajimon
  • • Smt. Govindu P. Renukadevi

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri. Lohithakshan Chathadi Kannoth
  • • Sri. Amjad Ali (Public Prosecutor)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 CrPC before a Single Judge of the Kerala High Court. The petitioners, Javeed, Yusuf and Faizal, challenge the proceedings in LPC 117 of 2009 arising from Crime No. 357 of 2006 at Kasaragod Police Station, alleging offences under sections 341, 323 and 506(II) read with section 34 IPC. The incident, dated 30 April 2006, involved the petitioners allegedly restraining and assaulting the first respondent; the final report was laid, but the petitioners did not appear, and the case was placed in the Long Pending Cases list. The petition contends that a compromise has been arrived at and the first respondent has sworn an affidavit absolving the petitioners, and that the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised to quash the proceedings to prevent abuse of process and to secure ends of justice. The Public Prosecutor opposes, noting the gravity of offences, but acknowledges the petitioners lack prior criminal antecedents. The court considers the compromise and absolution, cites Shiji @ Pappu v. Radhika and Another, Gian Singh and Narinder Singh as controlling precedents, and holds that, given the settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of conviction and continuing proceedings would be futile. Accordingly, the court quashes LPC 117/2009 against the petitioners and closes the matter.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the CrPCSection 341 IPCSection 323 IPCSection 506(II) r/w Section 34 IPCSection 320 CrPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • ex debito justitiae
  • ends of justice
  • res integra
  • inherent powers of this Court

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that the long-pending proceedings in LPC 117/2009 are an abuse of process and that the dispute has been settled by compromise, with the victim absolving the petitioners. Relying on the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC and precedents like Shiji @ Pappu v. Radhika and Another, Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, they contend that continuing the case would defeat the ends of justice and that quashing is warranted to secure peace and restore social harmony.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents concede the compromise was achieved but emphasize the gravity of the offences and the need to safeguard public interest. While noting that the petitioners have no prior criminal antecedents, they argue that the court should exercise restraint given the seriousness of the alleged offences and that quashing should not be automatic merely because a settlement exists.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Shiji @ Pappu and Others v. Radhika and Another2011(10) SCC 705PositiveCited to support the Court's exercise of inherent powers under 482 CrPC to quash proceedings where a settlement exists and ends of justice require it.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another2012(10) SCC 303PositiveQuoted for the principle that quashing can be justified to prevent futile litigation when settlement is reached and likelihood of conviction is minimal.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab2014 (6) SCC 466PositiveReferenced to reinforce ends-of-justice rationale and the use of inherent powers to quash in appropriate circumstances.

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 Javeed, Yusuf and Faizal v. Abdul Latheef and 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** **THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/31ST BHADRA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 4071 of 2016 () --------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN LPC 117/2009 of J.M.F.C.I,KASARAGOD DATED CRIME NO. 357/2006 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION , KASARAGOD** ## **PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **--------------------------------** ## **1. JAVEED** **AGED 31 YEARS, A1, S/O. FAREEDA, R/AT ZIAD MANZIL, MEEPUGURI, KUDLU VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK.** ## **2. YUSUF** **AGED 45 YEARS, A2, S/O. IBRAHIM, R/AT KADHUPULU HOUSE, PERINGADI, UPPALA VILLAGE, KASARGOD TALUK.** ## **3. FAIZAL** **AGED 29 YEARS, A3, S/O. O.ABDULRAHMAN, R/AT MEEPUGURI HOUSE, RAMDASNAGAR, KUDLU VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK.** **BY ADVS.SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON SMT.GOVINDU P.RENUKADEVI** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE:** **--------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. ABDUL LATHEEF** **AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. B.K.IBRAHIM, R/AT NR: PALLAMRAILLAM RAILWAY GATE, KASARAGOD TALUK.673571** **2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.682031** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.LOHITHAKSHAN CHATHADI KANNOTH R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. AMJAD ALI** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **CONTD...** **:2:** **Crl.MC.No. 4071 of 2016 () ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------ANNEXURE A1 THE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT. ANNEXURE A2 THE AFFIDAVIT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL -----------------------** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **SKS** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## Crl.M.C. No. 4071 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## Dated 22[nd] September, 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **ORDER** - 1.This petiiton is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. - 2.On the basis of the information given by the 1[st] respondent herein, Crime No. 357 of 2006 of the Kasaragod Police Station was registered against the petitioners herein for offences punishable under Section 341, 323, 506 (II) r/w Section 34 of the IPC. - 3.Succintly stated, the prosecution allegation is that on - 30.04.2006 at 12 hrs., the petitioners had wrongly restrained the 1[st] respondent herein and assaulted him causing injuries. Final report was laid before the jurisdictional Magistrate. It appears that the petitioners did not appear before the trial court in pursuance to the Crl.M.C. No. 4071 of 2016 2 summons and the case against them have been included in the list of Long Pending Cases and is numbered as L.P.C.No.117 of 2009. The prayer in this petition is to quash the proceedings on the ground of compromise arrived at between the petitioners and the 1[st] respondent. - 4.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the 1[st] respondent and also the learned Public Prosecutor. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent that an affidavit has been sworn to by the victim completely absolving the petitioners. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in view of the compromise arrived at between the petitioners and the private respondents, the inherent power can be exercised by this Court and the entire proceedings are liable to be quashed. Reference is made to the judgment of the Apex Court in **Shiji @ Pappu and** Crl.M.C. No. 4071 of 2016 3 **Others v. Radhika and Another** [2011(10) SCC 705], **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another** [2012(10) SCC 303] and **Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab** [2014 (6) SCC 466] to contend that this Court will be justified in exercising inherent powers in a case of this nature to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. - 6.Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that the nature and gravity of offence are such that this Court will not be justified in exercising its discretionary powers. However, it is submitted that the petitioners are not persons with criminal antecedents. - 7.I have considered the rival submissions and have taken note of the fact that the disputes have been compromised and the victim has completely absolved the petitioners. The affidavit sworn to by the party respondent makes it abundantly clear that he does not wish that the criminal Crl.M.C. No. 4071 of 2016 4 ## proceedings against the petitioners should continue. 8.The legal position is no longer _res integra_ that the inhereint powers of this Court enshrined under Section 482 of the Code is distinct from the power of a criminal court to compound the offence under Section 320 of the Code. The powers can be exercised _ex debito justitiae_ to render real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. However, the plenitude of the power under Section 482 of the Code by itself makes it obligatory for this Court to exercise the same with utmost care and caution. As held in the precedents cited above, securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor, the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled can be taken note of by this Court and proceedings can be quashed if it ultimately be only an exercise in futility and if justice demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an Crl.M.C. No. 4071 of 2016 5 end and peace is restored. As held in **Gian Singh** (supra) this Court within the framework of its inherent power can quash the criminal proceeding if it is satisfied on the face of such settlement that there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be the casuality and ends of justice shall be defeated. 9.After anxiously considering the allegations it appears that the party respondent has completely absolved the petitioners and even if the criminal proceedings are taken to its logical conclusions it would be nothing but an exercise in futility. Further more, it is not reported that the petitioners are involved in any other criminal proceedings. In the above view of the matter, I am of the view that the inherent powers of this Court can be execrised for quashing the impugned criminal proceedings. Crl.M.C. No. 4071 of 2016 6 In the result, this petition will stand allowed. The criminal proceeding pending against the petitioners on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Kasaragod as L.P.C.No.117 of 2009 are quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE** SKS //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE