High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed

K.A. Akber v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C.No.2114 of 2008

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • R. Basant, J.
Judgment Date
2008-09-26
Court Decision / Holding
This Crl.M.C. is allowed. C.C.No.421/2008 pending before the J.F.C.M., Kodungalloor is quashed. The proceedings against the petitioner are brought to premature termination in light of the settlement and the lack of involvement by the petitioner in the alleged offences.
Final Disposition
Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • K.A. Akber

Respondents

  • State of Kerala (Public Prosecutor)
  • Omana (Addl.R2)
  • Geetha (Addl.R3)
  • Complainant

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri. John K. George
  • • Sri. P.K. Varghese

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Public Prosecutor S.U. Nazar

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case concerns the third accused, K.A. Akber, in a prosecution initially under sections 452 and 354 read with 149 IPC. After the trial of co-accused in CC 415/2007 concluded with acquittals of all others, the Magistrate noted that the petitioner’s case had not been disposed of and directed the matter to be refiled as CC 421/2008. The petitioner approached the High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashment on the basis of a genuine, voluntary settlement between the de facto complainants (additional respondents 2 and 3) and the petitioner, indicating that he had no role in the alleged offence. Additional respondents 2 and 3, who are the complainants, have since appeared and affidavited to settle the disputes and waive any grievance against the petitioner. The respondents’ counsel confirmed the bona fide settlement, and the court observed that the absence of any grievance coupled with the petitioner’s lack of involvement justified invoking the High Court’s inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. to terminate the proceedings prematurely. Relying on the Supreme Court dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008), the court held this to be an eminently fit case for quashing the proceedings, thereby directing CC 421/2008 to be quashed and the petition allowed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 452 IPCSection 354 read with Section 149 IPCSection 173(8) Cr.P.CSection 482 Cr.P.C

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Inherent powers of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash criminal proceedings
  • Doctrine of compounding/offences—settlement between complainants and accused can terminate proceedings

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that no specific orders were passed on the further final report filed under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. and that the trial court’s continuation of proceedings after the acquittal of other co-accused, combined with a genuine, voluntary settlement between de facto complainants 2 and 3 and the petitioner, justifies exercise of the High Court’s powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash. It is argued that the petitioner had no role in the alleged offence and that continuing the proceedings would be unjust.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents acknowledge the bona fide settlement between the complainants (Addl.R2 and Addl.R3) and the petitioner and contend that the High Court is empowered to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to prevent manifest injustice when the accused is not materially connected to the alleged offence; the court is urged to consider the settlement but ensure that the process ends in a lawful and fair manner.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab2008 AIR SCW 2287PositiveThe court relied on the Madan Mohan Abbot dictum to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash proceedings in view of a genuine settlement between the complainants and the accused.

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 K.A. Akber 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 R.BASANT** **FRIDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 4TH ASWINA 1930** **Crl.MC.No. 2114 of 2008()** **--------------------------------------** **(AGAINST JUDGMENT DATED 30/05/2008 IN C.C.NO.415/07 OF J.F.C.M., KODUNGALLUR)** ## **PETITIONER: 3RD ACCUSED:** **-------------------------------------------** **SRI.K.A.AKBER, S/O.ABDUL KARIM, KUNNATH (H), KOZHIKKADA, KODUNGALLOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.JOHN K.GEORGE SRI.P.K.VARGHESE** **RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT:** **----------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.** ***ADDL.R2 & R3 IS IMPLEADED:** - **R2. OMANA, D/O.SUBRAMANIAN, VALLMPARAMBATH, CHENNAPPARA DESOM, OPP.K.J.HOSPITAL, KONDUNGALLUR, NOW RESIDING AT VALLAMPARAMBATH, PANIKKASSERY, BEHIND MODERN HOSPITAL, NEAR ANGANVADI, KONDUNGALLUR, PIN – 680 664.** - **R3. GEETHA (TEACHER), D/O.SANKARANKUTTY, VILLWAMANGALATH HOUSE, CHANDAPPURA DESOM, OPP.K.J.HOSPITAL, KONDUNGALLUR, NOW RESIDING AT VILLWAMANGALATH HOUSE, NORTH LOKAMALLESWARAM, VAYALAR, KONDUNGALLUR, PIN – 680 664.** - **(*ADDL.R2 & R3 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 13/08/08 IN CRL.M.P.NO.4251/08 IN CRL.M.C.NO.2114/08)** **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** _Kss_ ## **R.BASANT, J.** **----------------------** Crl.M.C.No.2114 of 2008 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 26[th] day of September 2008 ## **O R D E R** The petitioner, along with the co-accused, faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable inter alia under Sections 452 and 354 read with 149 I.P.C. Final report was filed. Cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate. At that stage, a further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C was conducted by the police in accordance with law and after such investigation, a further final report was filed to apprise the court that the petitioner herein/third accused has to be dropped from the array of accused. No specific orders were passed on that further final report. Trial proceeded against the co-accused. No action was taken against the petitioner in that case, that is C.C.No.415/2007. At the end of the trial in C.C.No.415/2007, all the available accused (all the other 13 accused except the petitioner herein) were found not guilty and acquitted. Taking note of the fact that the proceedings against the petitioner/third accused has not been disposed of, the learned Magistrate Crl.M.C.No.2114/08 2 directed that the case against him be refiled. Accordingly, the case stood refiled as C.C.No.421/2008. When the petitioner received summons, he came to this court with this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against him. 2. A perusal of the records revealed that no specific orders were passed on the further final report submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The learned Magistrate was directed to consider such report and pass appropriate orders after hearing all concerned. The learned Magistrate, by the impugned order, rejected such further final report and directed that the proceedings against the petitioner must continue. At this stage, the de facto complainants/victims were brought on the array of accused as the additional second and third respondent. Additional respondents 2 and 3 are the de facto complainants/victims in the crime. They have now entered appearance and filed affidavits to confirm that they have settled the disputes and they do not want the proceedings against the petitioner to continue. In fact, the affidavits show that the petitioner herein had no role in the alleged crime and the additional respondents 2 and 3 hence have no grievance against Crl.M.C.No.2114/08 3 the petitioner. In the light of that circumstance which has come into existence after filing the Crl.M.C, it is prayed that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked as enabled by the dictum in **Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [2008 AIR SCW 2287]** to bring to premature termination the proceedings against the petitioner. 3. It is unnecessary for me now to consider whether the refusal of the learned Magistrate to accept further final report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C is justified or not. This case can be disposed of on the basis of the assertion that respondents 2 and 3 have settled the disputes with the petitioner and they have compounded the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner though the alleged offences include non-bailable offences. This specific assertion shows that the petitioner has no complicity at all. Respondents 2 and 3 are represented by their counsel. The counsel confirms that there has been a genuine, bona fide and voluntary settlement of the disputes between the additional respondents 2 and 3 and the petitioner herein and they have no grievance whatsoever against the petitioners. Crl.M.C.No.2114/08 4 4. I am, in these circumstances satisfied that this is an eminently fit case where the composition by additional respondents 2 and 3 can be accepted and as enabled by the decision in **Madan Mohan** (Supra), proceedings against the petitioner can be brought to premature termination. 5. In the result, a) This Crl.M.C is allowed. b) C.C.No.421/2008 pending against the petitioner herein before the learned J.F.C.M, Kodungalloor is hereby quashed. **(R.BASANT, JUDGE)** jsr Crl.M.C.No.2114/08 5 Crl.M.C.No.2114/08 6 ## **R.BASANT, J.** CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008