Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgePetition allowed; quashing of CC No. 953 of 201...

Muhammed, Abdul Salam, Anthru @ Abdu Rahiman and Faizal v. Circle Inspector of Police, Vatakara Police Station, Sakkariya and State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No. 6166 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
Judgment Date
2016-10-06
Court Decision / Holding
The petition is allowed. Annexure-2 (final report) and all proceedings in CC No. 953 of 2015 before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Vatakara, are quashed.
Final Disposition
Petition allowed; quashing of CC No. 953 of 2015 and related proceedings.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Muhammed
  • Abdul Salam
  • Anthru @ Abdu Rahiman
  • Faizal

Respondents

  • Circle Inspector of Police, Vatakara Police Station, Kozhikode District
  • Sakkariya
  • State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri C. Khalid
  • • Smt. K. Reeh Khader

Counsels for Respondents

  • • P. K. Subhash R.
  • • T. R. Renjith

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC (Crl.M.C. No. 6166 of 2016) seeking quashing of proceedings in CC No. 953 of 2015 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vatakara. The petitioners—Muhammed, Abdul Salam, Anthru (alias Abdu Rahiman) and Faizal—are accused in offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 506(ii) read with Section 34 IPC arising from an incident dated 11.11.2014, in front of the Nedumbramanna Mosque, where the 2nd respondent allegedly restrained him and assaulted him with a wooden rafter, causing injuries. The 2nd respondent has sworn that the dispute was resolved and does not wish to continue criminal proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioners urge that the ongoing proceedings be quashed in the interest of justice in light of the settlement. The Public Prosecutor expresses reservations, arguing that Section 482 powers are not ordinarily invoked in cases lacking private civil flavour. The Court places reliance on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, and Rajesh Kamath J. v. Mohana Kurup, to reiterate that 482 can be exercised in cases with private settlements and predominatingly civil flavour, while not extending to crimes against society. The judge finds the offence not grave and the settlement indicates remote chances of conviction, justifying quashing. Consequently, the petition is allowed; CC 953 of 2015 and related proceedings are quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 CrPCSections 341, 323, 324, 506(ii) IPCSection 34 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Power of High Court under Section 482 CrPC can quash proceedings beyond Section 320 CrPC, especially in cases with private settlements and civil flavour (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab)
  • Private settlements/guidelines for quashing under 482 (Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab)
  • Quashing in cases with predominating civil flavour and where public interest is not offended (Rajesh Kamath J. v. Mohana Kurup)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that the dispute has been settled between the parties. They argued that continuing criminal proceedings despite the settlement would cause oppression and prejudice. Under Section 482, the High Court may quash proceedings in cases with private, civil-flavour disputes where the settlement resolves the entire dispute, and where continued prosecution serves no purpose.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that quashing under Section 482 is not a blanket remedy and should not be used in cases where public interest or the gravity of the offence does not warrant such action. They highlighted concerns about jurisdictional limits and emphasized that settlements may not always justify quashing criminal proceedings; nonetheless, the Supreme Court precedents were noted to guide the discretionary exercise.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another2012 (10) SCC 303PositiveCited for its clear pronouncement that the power under Section 482 CrPC extends to quashing proceedings based on private settlements and civil flavour, beyond 320 CrPC, while recognizing limits where crimes against society are involved.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab2014 (6) SCC 466PositiveCited for guidelines on exercising the extraordinary power in private settlement contexts and for appreciating nuances in quashing criminal proceedings.
Rajesh Kamath J. v. Mohana Kurup and OthersAIR 2016 SC 2452PositiveCited for additional guidance on when High Courts may exercise Section 482 in cases with civil flavour and settlements.

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 Muhammed, Abdul Salam, Anthru @ Abdu Rahiman and Faizal v. Circle Inspector of Police, Vatakara Police Station, Sakkariya 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 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/14TH ASWINA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 6166 of 2016 ()** ## **---------------------------** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 953/2015 of J.M.F.C.,VADAKARA DATED CRIME NO. 1105/2014 OF VATAKARA POLICE STATION , KOZHIKODE** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4:** **-------------------------------** ## **1. MUHAMMED** **S/O.HAMEED, AGED 29 YEARS, KIZHAKKAYIL VALAPPIL, CHANIYAMKADAVU PO, NEDUMBUMANNA PALLIKKADUKK** ## **2. ABDUL SALAM** **AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.MOOSA, THEVAROT HOUSE, CHANIYAMKADAVU POST, NEDUMBUMANNA, VATAKARA** **3. ANTHRU @ ABDU RAHIMAN AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.POCKER, THEVAROT HOUSE, CHANIYAMKADAVU POST, NEDUMBUMANNA, VATAKARA** ## **4. FAIZAL** **AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.HAMEED, KIZHAKKAYIL VALAPPIL, CHANIYAMKADAVUY PO, NEDUMBUMANNA PALLIKKADUTH** **BY ADVS.SRI.C.KHALID SMT.K.REEHA KHADER** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/STATE:** **----------------------------------------** **1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VATAKARA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673001** **CONTD...** **:2:** **Crl.MCNo. 6166 of 2016 ()** ## **---------------------------** ## **2. SAKKARIYA** **AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.ANDRU, NAMBODII MANNIL, POOLAKKOOL, PO, KAKKAD, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673001** **3. STATE OF KERALA** **REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN 31** **R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SUBHASH R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.T.R. RENJITH** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **CONTD....** **:3:** **Crl.MC.No. 6166 of 2016 () ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-----------------------** **ANNEXURE NO.1 THE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 1105/2014 OF 13/11/2014 OF VATAKARA POLICE STATION IN KOZHIKODE** **ANNEXURE NO.2 THE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 1105/2014 DATED 13.11.2014 OF VATAKARA POLICE STATION** **ANNEXURE NO.3 THE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT DATED 05.09.2016** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL -----------------------** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** ## **SKS** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## Crl.M.C. No. 6166 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## Dated 6[th] October, 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **ORDER** - 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 them as C.C.No.953 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Vatakara. In the said case, they stand indicted for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 506 (ii) r/w Section 34 of the IPC. - 2.The prosecution allegation is that the petitioners wrongfully restrained the 2[nd] respondent, on 11.11.2014 at - 4.30 pm, in front of the Nedumbramanna Mosque and thereafter assaulted him with a wooden rafter and caused injuries. - 3.The 2[nd] respondent has entered appearance through his counsel and has filed Annexure-3 affidavit wherein he Crl.M.C. No. 6166 of 2016 2 asserts that the dispute between him and petitioners have been resolved at the instance of well wishers. It is further stated that he does not wish that the criminal proceedings against the petitioners should continue. - 4.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. - 5.The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions has expressed his reservations in the matter of quashing the proceedings on the basis of settlement. It is submitted that the invocation of powers under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is not warranted. However, it is submitted that no other cases are reported against the petitioners. - 6.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 Crl.M.C. No. 6166 of 2016 3 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 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. Or Crl.M.C. No. 6166 of 2016 4 even offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc. or family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal. 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 recently in **Rajesh Kamath J. and Others v. Mohana Kurup and Others** [AIR 2016 SC 2452]. 7.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 5 Crl.M.C. No. 6166 of 2016 exercise. It would also put the petitioners and the 2[nd] respondent to great oppression and prejudice 8.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. In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-2, final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.C. No. 953 of 2015 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vatakara are quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE** SKS //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE