High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-08-30Quashed

Muhammad Riyas M.A. and others v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No.5095 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date: 2016-08-30
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is allowed. The final report arising from Crime No. 1808/2014 and all further proceedings against petitioners 1-9 in S.C.659/2015 are quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
Final Disposition: Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Muhammad Riyas M.A.
Noufal M.A.
Anees C.
Bilal M.P.
Shuhail M.K.
Jamsheer M.A.
Hasnaf K.V.
Afsak N.V.
Rahid @ Akbava
Haseem M.K.

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam-682031
Jijesh M

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P. K. Ravisankar

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor Pushpalatha M.K.
• D. Anil Kumar

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case arising from Crime No. 1808/2014 of Kannur Town Police Station, linked to S.C. No. 659 of 2015 before the Assistant Sessions Court, Kannur. Accused nos. 1 to 9 (10th accused being a juvenile) seek quashing of proceedings under Section 482 CrPC on the ground that the dispute has been amicably settled with the injured party and that they have reformed. The 2nd respondent (injured party, Jijesh M) has filed an affidavit indicating no objection to termination of proceedings. The Public Prosecutor opposes quashing since the offences alleged include a serious section (307 IPC) and the matter cannot be treated as private. The petitioners rely on Supreme Court precedents like Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Yogendra Yadav v. State of Jharkhand to contend that settlement can justify terminating proceedings. The court notes the injuries described in the wound certificate and observes that the dispute appears personal and not affecting public peace. After careful consideration, the judge concludes that continued prosecution would serve no broader interest and would cause oppression; thus, using its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, the proceedings are quashed and the final report in Crime No.1808/2014 and related proceedings in S.C. No.659/2015 are terminated, enabling the parties to move on with their lives in peace and harmony.

Provisions of Law Cited

IPC Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326 and 309 read with Section 149Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 482

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Inherent powers of High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012 (4) KLT 108) principle that settlement can lead to quashing
Yogendra Yadav v State of Jharkhand (2014 (9) SCC 653) principle that settlements can be looked into in offences including Section 307 IPC
Private nature of offences and balance with public interest in quashing proceedings

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argued that the alleged offences are private in nature and settled amicably with the injured party, who has no objection to terminating the proceedings. They contended that the offences, though including a Section 307 IPC charge, arise from a personal altercation and do not affect public peace. They relied on Gian Singh and Yogendra Yadav to demonstrate that settlement can justify quashing under the High Court’s inherent powers (Section 482 CrPC), especially where continued prosecution would be oppressive and serve little purpose, allowing both sides to live in peace and harmony.

Contentions of Respondents

The State, through the Public Prosecutor, submitted that the case involves serious offences including Section 307 IPC and cannot be treated as private in nature. The settlement cannot by itself justify quashing; the matter should proceed to trial to safeguard public interest and ensure accountability for the offences charged.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 (4) KLT 108	Mentioned Only	Cited by the parties to support the settlement-quashing approach; the court references the decision but does not expressly apply or distinguish it in its own reasoning.
Yogendra Yadav and others v State of Jharkhand	2014 (9) SCC 653	Positive	Court relies on the principle that settlements can be examined and may justify quashing even in cases involving serious offences, to support the decision to terminate proceedings.

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 Muhammad Riyas M.A. and others 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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/8TH BHADRA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 5095 of 2016 ()** **--------------------------SC 659/2015 of ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, KANNUR CP 50/2015 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, KANNUR CRIME NO. 1808/2014 OF KANNUR TOWN, KANNUR DISTRICT** **--------** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 10:** **----------------------------------** ## **1. MUHAMMAD RIYAS M.A** **S/O MAHAMMOOD, AGED 22 YEARS, MUKKANAN EKARATHE PURAYIL, NEAR BRIDGE, KATTAMPALLY POST, KANNUR-670 011.** ## **2. NOUFAL M.A.** **S/O KASMIM, AGED 36 YEARS, MUKKANNAN EKARATE PURAYIL, NEAR BRIDGE, KATTAMPALLY POST, KANNUR-670 011.** ## **3. ANEES C.** - **S/O ABDUL AZEEZ, AGED 23 YEARS, CHENNIL HOUSE, NEAR BRIDGE, KATAMPALLY POST, KANNUR-670 011.** ## **4. BILAL M.P** **S/O MAHIN, AGED 26 YEARS, MUKKANNAN EKARATHE PURAYIL, HALI MANZIL, CHIRAKKAL, KATTAMPALLY POST, KANNUR-670 011.** ## **5. SHUHAIL M.K.** **S/O MUSTHAFA, AGED 22 YEARS, MUKKIRI,** **KOLLARATHIKKAL, CHIRAKKAL AMSOM, KATTAMPALLY POST, KANNUR-670 011.** ## **6. JAMSHEER M.A.** - **S/O KHADAR, AGED 26 YEARS, MUKKANNAN ANGETHALAKKU, CHIRAKKAL AMSOM, KATTAMPALLY POST, KANNUR-670 011.** ## **7. HASNAF K.V.** - **S/O AZEES, AGED 21 YERS, FAUZIYA MANZIL, CHIRAKKAL AMSOM, KATTAMPALLY POST, KANNUR-670 011.** ## **Crl.MC.No. 5095 of 2016 ()** ## **8. AFSAK N.V.** - **S/O MAJEED, AGED 26 YEARS, MUKKANNAN PUTHIYA PURAYIL HOUSE, NEAR BRIDGE, KATTAMPALLY POST, KANNUR-670 011.** ## **9. RAHID @ AKBAVA** - **S/O MAJEED, AGED 23 UYEARS, MUKKANNAN PUTHIYA PURAYIL HOUSE, NEAR BRIDGE, KATTAMPALLY POST, KANNUR-670 011.** ## **10. HASEEM M.K.** - **S/O ABUL NAZAR, AGED 19 YEARS, MUKKANNAN KEECHIPRATH HOUSE,** - **KATTAMPALLY POST, KANNUR-670 011.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND INJURYED WITNESS:** **-----------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.** ## **2. JIJESH M** - **S/O BALAN, AGED 40 YEARS, VALAPPIL HOUSE, NEAR KOTTALIKKAVU, KOTTALI POST, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 005.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.PUSHPALATHA M.K. R2 BY ADV. SRI.D.ANIL KUMAR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **bp** ## **Crl.MC.No. 5095 of 2016 ()** ## **---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-----------------------** **ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPROT IN CRIME NO.1808/2014 OF KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE B: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 30.6.2016 SWORN TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** ## **bp** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 5095 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 30[th] August, 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **ORDER** - 1.The petitioners 1 to 9 herein are the accused in S.C.No.659 of 2015 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Court, Kannur. The said case has arisen from Crime No.1808 of 2014 of Kannur Town Police Station. It is on the basis of an information furnished by the 2[nd] respondent, the aforesaid crime was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326 and 309 read with Section 149 of the IPC. - 2.The 10[th] petitioner herein was arrayed as 8[th] accused in the crime but as he was a juvenile, the case against him was not committed to the Court of Session. - 3.The prosecution allegation is that, on 8.12.2014, the petitioners herein had assaulted the 2[nd] respondent and caused grievous injuries. Crl.M.C. No.5095 of 2016 -2- - 4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. - 5.It is submitted that disputes have been amicably resolved and the parties are living in peace and harmony. The prayer in this petition is to permit them to continue as such by quashing the proceedings. Petitioners pray that an opportunity to redeem themselves be granted and they be permitted to move on with their life as reformed human beings. - 6.An affidavit has been filed by the respondent No 2 wherein he asserts that he has settled the matter with the petitioners herein and he has no objection in terminating the proceedings on its basis. Both sides rely on the decision of the Apex Court in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab** ( 2012 (4) KLT 108) to advance their contentions. - 7.The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioners are charged for having committed offence punishable Crl.M.C. No.5095 of 2016 -3- under Section 307 as well and the same cannot be said to be private in nature. It is submitted that the settlement arrived at between the parties cannot be a reason to quash the proceedings. - 8.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners on the other hand controvert the submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor and submits that the Apex Court in **Yogendra Yadav and others V State of Jharkhand** (2014 (9) SCC 653 ) has held that even in cases involving offence under Section 307 of the IPC, the settlement arrived at between the parties can be looked into and the proceedings can be brought to a termination. - 9.I have gone through the Accident Register-cum-Wound Certificate prepared by the Chief Medical Officer of the Chief Medical Officer, AKG Memorial Co operative Hospital, Kannur. The Wound Certificate reveals that the 2[nd] respondent has sustained periorbital edema on the right Crl.M.C. No.5095 of 2016 -4- side and subconjugal hemorrhage. 10.I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made across the Bar and I have also gone through the materials on record. It appears that the offence is entirely personal in nature and do not affect public peace or tranquility. In a case such as the instant one, even if the prosecution is allowed to continue, it would not serve any purpose as the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. It can only result in putting the _de facto_ complainant and the accused to unwanted oppression and prejudice. Settlement will augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony. I am of the view that proceedings can justifiably be quashed invoking the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code. Crl.M.C. No.5095 of 2016 -5- In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-A final report arising from Crime No.1808 of 2014 of Kannur Town Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners and the proceedings against petitioners 1 to 9 in S.C.659 of 2015 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Kannur are quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE** kp/-30.8.16