� - High Court of Kerala (2016)

High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-10-21Petition allowed; proceedings quashed; CC 872/2...

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No. 6037 of 2016

Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
Judgment Date: 2016-10-21
Court Decision / Holding: The court allowed the petition; quashed CC 872/2010 and all further proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; proceedings quashed; CC 872/2010 and all further proceedings quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Chanth Ibrahimkutty
Kareem
Saidalavi
Yakoob
Hamsa
Subair
Abdu
Mujeeb Rahman
Haroon
Ameen
Mohammed Rafeeque
Nishad
Mohammed Noufal
Abdul Haq
Shahid
Aneesh
Dasan
Ravi
Suresh

Respondents

State of Kerala, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam (representing Sub Inspector of Police, Thirurangadi Police Station)
AbooBakkar, S/o Mohammed, etc. (De facto complainant)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri K.P. Sudheer

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Arun Mathew Vadakkan
• Sri Amjad Ali

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case under section 482 CrPC challenges the proceedings in CC No. 872/2010, pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Parappanangadi. The petition is filed by nineteen accused seeking to quash the private complaint against them, arising from a civil dispute over a pathway and a sequence of civil and criminal proceedings between rival parties. The 2nd respondent, the de facto complainant, filed a private complaint on 28.06.2010 alleging offences under IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 427, 323, 324, 294 and 509 read with section 149. The petition contends that the entire dispute has been settled as per Annexure-A3 (settlement) and Annexure-A4 (affidavit) and that continuation of criminal proceedings would undermine peace between the parties. The State Public Prosecutor indicates no serious objection to quashing in light of the settlement. The court relies on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, and Rajesh Kamath J. and Others v. Mohana Kurup and Others, to emphasize that High Courts can quash under 482 CrPC in cases with a civil flavour or where settlements exist, while not extending to crimes against society. After weighing the facts, the judge finds the offences are not grave and the settlement will prevent further disputes; continuing proceedings would be futile. The petition is allowed; CC 872/2010 and all further proceedings are quashed, in the interest of peace and harmony.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the CrPCIPC Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 427, 323, 324, 294, 509 read with 149

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Inherent powers of High Courts under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to quash criminal proceedings.
Quashing permissible in cases with overwhelming civil flavour or where private settlements resolve entire disputes.
Settlements between private parties can justify quashing, subject to public interest constraints.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that civil disputes between the parties have been resolved by a comprehensive settlement (Annexure-A3) with Annexure-A4 sworn affidavits, and that continuing the criminal proceedings would undermine the peace achieved. They contend the offences charged are not grave, and the State has no serious objection given the settlement. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, they argue that 482 CrPC grants broad power to quash in cases with a civil flavour or where settlements exist, particularly where the entire dispute has been mutually settled, and where continuing would amount to futility and re-litigation. They emphasise that the public interest is served by quashing to preserve harmony. They also cite Rajesh Kamath J. and Others v. Mohana Kurup and Others for contemporary guidance on settlements guiding the exercise of 482 powers.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents acknowledge the settlement but caution that quashing must not undermine justice where offences affecting public order or society exist. The Public Prosecutor indicates no serious objection to quashing given the lack of grave consequences post-settlement, but stresses vigilance to ensure public interest is served. The de facto complainant’s side emphasizes the need to prevent evasion of accountability, while acknowledging the amicable settlement. The State urges a cautious application of Section 482, ensuring that quashing does not become an escape hatch for serious offenses, and that terms of settlement are fair and voluntary. Overall, the respondent submissions stress balancing peace with public accountability and justice.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another	2012 (10) SCC 303	Positive	Landmark principle that 482 CrPC can be invoked beyond Section 320 and may quash based on settlements between private parties in cases with civil flavour.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	2014 (6) SCC 466	Positive	Guidelines on quashing in cases with settlements, supporting exercise of inherent power in private-dispute contexts.
Rajesh Kamath J. and Others v. Mohana Kurup and Others	AIR 2016 SC 2452	Positive	Recent guidance reinforcing settlement-based quashing under 482 CrPC and its adaptability to private disputes.

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 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 FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/29TH ASWINA, 1938 Crl.MC.No. 6037 of 2016 () --------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 872/2010 of J.M.F.C.i,PARAPPANANGADI DATED PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED: --------------------1. CHANTH IBRAHIMKUTTY, S/O. ISMAIL, AGED 41 YEARS, CHANTHU HOUSE, POTTAMMAL, P.O. PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. KAREEM, S/O. ISMAIL, AGED 36 YEARS, CHANTHU HOUSE, POTTAMMAL, P.O. PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. SAIDALAVI, S/O. MAMMADU, AGED 61 YEARS, MACHINGAL HOUSE,PANTHARANGADI POST, THRIKKULAM, PALLIPPADI, MALAPPURAM -676 306. 4. YAKOOB, S/O. SAIDALAVI, AGED 37 YEARS, MACHINGAL HOUSE,PANTHARANGADI POST, THRIKKULAM, PALLIPPADI, MALAPPURAM -676 306. 5. HAMSA, S/O. SAIDALAVI, AGED 32 YEARS, MACHINGAL HOUSE,PALATHINGAL - PALLIPPADI, PANTHARANGADI POST, MALAPPURAM -676 306. 6. SUBAIR, S/O. KUNHIMUHAMMED, AGED 34 YEARS, MACHINGAL HOUSE, PALATHINGAL - PALLIPPADI, PANTHARANGADI POST, MALAPPURAM -676 306. CONTD... :2: Crl.MC.No. 6037 of 2016 () --------------------------- 7. ABDU, S/O. UNNEENKUTTY, AGED 50 YEARS, THRIKKULAM PALATHINGAL, PANTHARANGAD P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 8. MUJEEB RAHMAN, S/O. NABEESA, AGED 33 YEARS, MOOLATHIL VEEDU, PANTHARANGADI POST, THRIKKULAM, PALLIPPADI, MALAPPURAM -676 306. 9. HAROON, S/O. AHAMMED,AGED 33 YEARSM MOOLATHIL VEEDU, PANTHARANGADI POST, THRIKKULAM, PALLIPPADI, MALAPPURAM -676 306. 10. AMEEN, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. MOHAMMEDALI, POOCHENGAL KUNNATH HOUSE, PALATHINGAL, PANTHARANGADI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 11. MOHAMMED RAFEEQUE AGED 35 YEARFS, S/O. ABDU SAMAD, MACHINGAL HOUSE, PALATHINGAL, PANTHARANGADI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 12. NISHAD, S/O. BEERAN, AGED 41 YEARS, MOOZHIKKAL VEEDU, PANTHARANGADI POST, PALLIPADI-THRIKKULAM, MALAPPURAMN- 676 306. 13. MOHAMMED NOUFAL, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. MOOZHIKKAL SAINABHA, PALATHINGAL, PANTHARANGADI POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676306. 14. ABDUL HAQ, S/O. ABDU RAHIMAN, AGED 28 YEARS, THOTTUMUGHAM AVIYIL HOUSE, PALATHINGAL, PANTHARANGADI POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676306. CONTD... **==> picture [23 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** Crl.MC.No. 6037 of 2016 () --------------------------- 15. SHAHID, S/O. KUTASSERY ALASSAN, AGED 28 YEARS, PALATHINGAL, PANTHARANGADI POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676306. 16. ANEESH, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, AGED 31 YEARS, PALAMADATHIL HOUSE, PANTHARANGADI POST, THRIKKULAM, PALLIPPADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676306. 17. DASAN, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, AGED 50 YEARS, PALAMADATHIL HOUSE, PANTHARANGADI POST, THRIKKULAM, PALLIPPADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676306. 18. RAVI, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, AGED 40 YEARS, PALAMADATHIL HOUSE, PANTHARANGADI POST, THRIKKULAM, PALLIPPADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676306. 19. SURESH, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, AGED 36 YEARS, PALAMADATHIL HOUSE, PANTHARANGADI POST, THRIKKULAM, PALLIPPADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676306. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRURANGADI POLICE STATION, THIRURANGADI - 676 306, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. ABOOBAKKAR, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMAD, POOCHENGAL KUNNATH, PANTHARANGADI POST,THRIKKULAM, PALLIPADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676306. CONTD... :4: R2 BY ADV. SRI.ARUN MATHEW VADAKKAN R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CONTD... **==> picture [23 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** Crl.MC.No. 6037 of 2016 () --------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE R2 DATED 28.6.2010 AND NUMBERED AS CMP NO. 2102 OF 2010 ON THE FILE OF THE JFCM, PARAPPANANGADI. ANNEXURE-A2: TRUE COPY OF PLAINT DATED 12.1.2010 IN O.S. NO. 17/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PARAPPANANGADI. ANNEXURE-A3: TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 24.9.2015 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PARTIES. ANNEXURE-A4: AFFIDVIT DATED 22.8.2016 EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL ----------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE SKS **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J. ---------------------------------Crl. M.C. No. 6037 of 2016 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 21[st] day of October, 2016** ## **O R D E R** - 1.This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Code') has been preferred by the petitioners herein for quashing the proceedings pending against him as C.C. No. 872 of 2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Parappanangadi. In the said case, they stand indicted for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 427, 323, 324, 294 and 509 r/w Section 149 of the IPC. - 2.The prosecution allegation, as is evident from the complaint filed by the 2[nd] respondent, is that on 26.06.2010 at 12.00 pm, the petitioners assaulted the 2[nd] respondent and caused injuries. - 3.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the 2[nd] respondent and the learned Public **Crl. M.C. No. 6037 of 2016** -2- Prosecutor. It is submitted that there was a dispute concerning a pathway which led to the institution of O.S.No.117 of 2010 before the Court of the Munsiff, Parappanangadi. As an aftermath to the civil proceedings, several criminal cases happened to be registered against the rival parties. Finally, at the instance of mediators and well-wishers, all pending disputes were settled and the parties are living in peace and harmony. It is urged that the pendency of the criminal proceedings will fuel fresh disputes and is likely to disturb the amity between the parties. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the 2[nd] respondent relies on Annexure-A3 settlement agreement wherein both the parties have agreed that all pending civil and criminal disputes will be withdrawn. 4.Learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent refers to Annexure-A4 affidavit sworn to by him and submits that no acrimony exists between the parties. According to the **Crl. M.C. No. 6037 of 2016** -3- learned counsel, the 2[nd] respondent has no objection in quashing the proceedings. - 5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, this Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings. - 6.The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions has submitted that the disputes have been resolved and in view of Annexure-A4, the State has no serious objections in quashing the proceedings as it would bring about peace and harmony between the rival parties. - 7.In **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another** [2012 (10)SCC 303], the Apex Court has crystalised the position in respect of the powers vested in the High Court under S.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to quash criminal proceedings. It was held that the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is not limited to quashing proceedings within the ambit **Crl. M.C. No. 6037 of 2016** -4- and scope of Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The three - Judge Bench in the above case, clearly expounded, that quashing of criminal proceedings under S.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, could also be based on settlements between private parties, and could also on a compromise between the offender and the victim. Only that, the above power did not extend to crimes against the society. It is also relevant to mention, that the jurisdiction vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for quashing criminal proceedings, was held to be exercisable in criminal cases having an overwhelming and predominatingly civil flavour, particularly offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership, or such like transactions. In all such cases, the parties should have resolved their entire dispute by themselves, mutually. Further, guidelines were issued by the Apex Court in **Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab** [2014 (6) SCC 466] and **Crl. M.C. No. 6037 of 2016** -5- recently in **Rajesh Kamath J. and Others v. Mohana Kurup and Others** [AIR 2016 SC 2452]. 8.I have considered the rival submissions and I have gone through the materials on record. 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. More over, when the respondent No.2 has settled the matter, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and the continuation of the criminal case against the petitioners would be a futile exercise. Further more, settlement will augur well for the interest for the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony. 9.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. **Crl. M.C. No. 6037 of 2016** -6- In the result, this petition will stand allowed. C.C. No. 872 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Parappanangadi and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners are quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE** SKS //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE