High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-12-02Quashed

K.T. Muhammed Rabeen @ Rabiyulla and others v. The State of Kerala and FIRAZATH Hassan

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No.7846 of 2016

Neutral Citation:/null

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date: 2016-12-02
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is allowed; Annexure-A FIR in Crime No.256/2016 and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners are quashed.
Final Disposition: Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

K.T. Muhammed Rabeen @ Rabiyulla
Afsal
Labee b Thangal
Binshad
Mufas Musthan
Ummer Farook Ali @ Dathu Thazhathheyil House, South Punnayoor, Vadakkekad, Thrissur District
Abdulla T. @ Peethambaran
Aboobacker Siddique
Bhageesh
Sulfikar
Shafeer
Prasanth
Rafeeque S/o. Muhammed Ali, Rayanmarakkar House, Orumanayoor, Chavakkad, Thrissur District

Respondents

The State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, Kochi - for the Sub Inspector of Police, Infopark Police Station, Ernakulam District.
FIRAZATH Hassan, S/o Mohammed, Pulpattil Areekath House, West Kodur, Kodur P.O., Malappuram District, PIN 676 504.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Sri. Babu S. Nair

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. SMT. M. Lisha
• Public Prosecutor Sri. T. Renjith

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC filed by 13 accused in Crime No.256/2016 of Infopark Police Station, Ernakulam, seeking to quash the pending criminal proceedings. The petition challenges the continuation of proceedings arising from a criminal conspiracy that led to the alleged abduction of the second respondent, with the FIR under Sections 120B, 363, 364A, 365 and 212 read with 34 IPC. The petition contends that a business dispute between the father of the second respondent and the first accused triggered the enrollment of the case, and that the information in the FIR reflects a misunderstanding rather than a genuine crime. Annexures include FI statement (Annexure-A) indicating the second respondent left with a person and later did not attend examinations, and affidavits (Annexures-B and C) from the second respondent and his father asserting there is no subsisting grievance. The Public Prosecutor notes that the second respondent’s statement records that the matter has been settled, and that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, the High Court held that where disputes are settled and continuation would be unfair or an abuse of process, quashing may be warranted to secure ends of justice. The petition is allowed; the FIR and all proceedings against the petitioners are quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal ProcedureSections 120B, 363, 364A, 365 and 212 read with 34 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ends of justice
Abuse of process of law

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that the underlying dispute is primarily a business dispute between the father of the 2nd respondent and the 1st accused, and that the information in the F.I.R. arises from a misunderstanding rather than a criminal design. Annexure-A records that the 2nd respondent left with one Siyad and later did not attend examinations; Annexures-B and C show affidavits by the 2nd respondent and his father asserting no subsisting grievance. They contend there is no justification to continue criminal proceedings where amicable settlement exists and continuation would cause injustice or abuse of process.

Contentions of Respondents

The State/Prosecution contends that the 2nd respondent’s statement records that the matter has been settled; the petitioners may not have prior criminal antecedents, but the offences alleged are serious enough to warrant continued proceedings where necessary. The learned Public Prosecutor sought to sustain the proceedings while acknowledging an agreement to settle.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian singh v. State of Punjab	(2012) 10 SCC 303	Positive	Apex Court held that the High Court can quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases where there is an amicable settlement between victim and offender, if continuation would be unfair or constitute abuse of process and ends of justice require it.
Narinder singh v. State of Punjab	(2014) 6 SCC 466	Positive	Reiterated that when parties reach a settlement, ends of justice or prevention of abuse of process guide the exercise of quashing power; courts must assess whether continuing proceedings serves ends of justice.

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.T. Muhammed Rabeen @ Rabiyulla and others v. The State of Kerala and FIRAZATH Hassan 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 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 7846 of 2016 ()** **---------------------------** ## **CRIME NO. 256/2016 OF INFOPARK POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:** **---------------------** ## **1. K.T.MUHAMMED RABEEN @ RABIYULLA** - **S/O.FAZALULLA, KARUVATNTHODI HOUSE, CHATTIPARAMBU, PERUVANTHODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **2. AFSAL** - **S/O.ALI, POOVALIKKOTTIL HOUSE, THEKKAN PUNNAYOOR, VADAKKEKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **3. LABEEB THANGAL** - **S/O.POOKUNHI KOYA THANGAL, RAHMABI HOUSE, PUNNAYOOR, VADAKKEKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **4. BINSHAD** - **S/O.GULA MUHAMMED, PADIYATH HOUSE, VATANAPALLY, NATTIKA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **5. MUFAS MUSTHAN** - **S/O.MUHAMMED ALI, MANNARAYIL HOUSE, KALLOOR, VADAKKEKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **6. UMMER FAROOK ALI @ DATHU THAZHATHEYIL HOUSE, SOUTH PUNNAYOOR, VADAKKEKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **7. ABDULLA T.@ PEETHAMBARAN** - **S/O.MUHAMMED ASHRAF, THONIKKADAVIL HOUSE, AYIROOR P.O., PERUMBADAPPU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **8. ABOOBACKER SIDDIQUE S/O.HAMZA, KOORIKKAD HOUSE, NAYARUPADI, THRIKKADEERI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** **9. BHAGEESH** - **S/O.BALAN, PUNNAYOOR, VADAKKEKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **10. SULFIKAR** - **S/O.KABEER, MACHINGATHODI HOUSE,** ## **OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** ## **11. SHAFEER** **S/O.HAMZA, THUPPATH HOUSE, KADANASSERY, GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** ## **12. PRASANTH** **S/O.BHARATHAN, PONNARASSERY HOUSE, KOONAMOOCHI, CHOONDAL, KECHERI, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **13. RAFEEQUE S/O.MUHAMMED ALI, RAYANMARAKKAR HOUSE, ORUMANAYOOR, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & COMPLAINANT:** **----------------------------------** **1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 031 - FOR THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, INFOPARK POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **2. FIRAZATH HASSAN** - **S/O.MUHAMMED, PULPATTIL AREEKATH HOUSE, WEST KODUR, KODUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 676 504.** **R2 BY ADV. SMT.M.LISHA** **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.R.RENJITH** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **Crl.MC.No. 7846 of 2016 ()** ## **---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** |**PETITIONER(S)'**|**ANNEXURES**| |---|---| |**-----------------------**|| |**ANNEXURE-A:**|<br>**TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R.AND F.I.S. IN CRIME**| ||**NO.256/2016 OF THE INFOPARK POLICE STATION DT,**| ||**23.3.2016.**| |**EXHIBIT-B:**|<br>**TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 2ND**| ||**RESPONDENT DATED, 14.11.2016.**| |**ANNEXURE-C:**|<br>**TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE FATHER**| ||**OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED, 14.11.2016.**| ## **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES -----------------------** ## **NIL** **/TRUE COPY/** **VPS PS TO JUDGE** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.7846 of 2016** ## **----------------------------------------Dated this the 2[nd] day of December, 2016** ## **O R D E R** - 1.This petition is filed under S.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 accused Nos.1 to 13 in Crime No.256 of 2016 of the Infopark Police station. The aforesaid crime has been registered under sections 120B, 363, 364A, 365 and 212 read with 34 of the IPC. - 3.The prosecution allegation is that in pursuance to a criminal conspiracy hatched by the petitioners herein, the 2[nd] respondent was abducted from Kakkanad in a Maruti car. The law was set in motion by a friend of the 2[nd] respondent. 2 Crl.M.C.7846/2016 - 4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. - 5.It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that there was a business dispute between the father of the 2[nd] respondent and the 1[st] accused. Referring to Annexure-A FI statement it is submitted that all that is stated by the 1[st] informant was that the 2[nd] respondent had gone with one Siyad and that on the next day he had not attended his examinations. According to the learned counsel, it was on a misunderstanding that the law was set in motion resulting in the registration of the crime. Reference is also made to Annexures-B and C affidavits sworn to by the 2[nd] respondent as well as the father of the 2[nd] respondent to bring home the point that the victim as well as the father has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners. - 6.The learned Public Prosecutor was directed to get instructions. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the statement of the 2[nd] respondent has been recorded and that he has asserted that the matter Crl.M.C.7846/2016 3 has been settled. It is submitted that the petitioners are not persons with criminal antecedents. 7.Heard the submissions advanced. 8.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.”_ 9.The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in **Narinder singh v. State of Punjab. (2014) 6 SCC 466,** the pertinent observations which are as under: _XXXXXXXXXXXX_ Crl.M.C.7846/2016 4 _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_ _xxxxxxx_ 10.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 of justice. Even otherwise , persisting with the prosecution would be nothing but a waste of time as the prospects of conviction would be bleak. 11.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.7846/2016 5 In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A FIR in Crime No.256 of 2016 of Infopark Police Station and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners are quashed. **Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE** vps