Muhammed Azharudheen B.H. and others v. State of Kerala and others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/13TH KARTHIKA, 1938 Crl.MC.No. 6399 of 2016 () --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 366/2016 of J.M.F.C.-II,HOSDRUG DATED CRIME NO. 64/2016 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION , KASARGOD PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 8: ---------------------------- 1. MUHAMMED AZHARUDHEEN B.H AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. HARIS B.H., SAFA MANZIL, KALLINGAL, PALLIKKARE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. ASIF. K.M. AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. MOHAMMED SALIH.K KALLINGAL (H), KALLINGAL, PALLIKKARE. 3. MOHAMMED NAJEEB AGED 19 YEARS, S/O. ABHAM, KALLINGAL (H), KALLINGAL, PALLIKKARE. 4. SAMEER.P.M AGED 33 YEARS S/O. ABDUL KHADAR.P.M. (H), KALLINGAL, PALLIKKARE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 5. RASHID AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL RAHIMAN, KALLINGA (H), KALLINGAL, PALLIKKARE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 6. IMTHIYAS.K AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. SALIH, SHAKIRA MANZHI (H), KALLINGAL, PALLIKKARE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 7. MOHAMMED FAISAL AGED 19 YEARS, S/O. HAMZA, KALARI (H), KALLINGAL, PALLIKKARE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. CONTD... **==> picture [23 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** Crl.MC.No. 6399 of 2016 () --------------------------- 8. MUHAMMED SUFAIL AGED 19 YEARS, S/O. YOOSAF, JOLLY NAGAR, PALLIKKARE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.RAHUL SASI SMT.NEETHU PREM RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031 2. AL AMEENULLA A.K. AGED 19 YEARS, S S/O MUHAMMED KUNHI A.K., AL AMEEN MANZIL NEAR GMUP SCHOOL, KALLINGAL, PALLIKKARRE VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DIST 671123 3. GIFRI @ MUHAMMED GIFRI, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O SHAHUL HAMEED, KALLINGAL HOUSE, PALLIKKARE VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD 671 123 R2 & 3 BY ADV. SRI.NIRMAL V NAIR R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CONTD.. :3: Crl.MC.No. 6399 of 2016 () --------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- ANNEXURE A1: A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.64 OF 2016 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION ANNEXURE A2: AFFIDAVIT DATED 09.09.2016 SUBMITTE BY 2ND RESPONDNET ANNEXURE A3: AFFIDAVIT DATED 09.09.2016 SUBMITTED BY 3RD RESPONDENT RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL ----------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE SKS ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.6399 of 2016 ----------------------------------------Dated this the 4[th] day of November, 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 the accused Nos. 1 to 8 in C.C. No. 366 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Hosdurg. They stand indicted for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 341, 324 r/w Section 149 of the IPC. - 3.The prosecution allegation is that on 05.02.2015 at about - 7.30 pm, the petitioners had formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common object wrongfully restrained the respondents 2 and 3 and assaulted them causing injuries. - 4.Heard the submissions advanced. - 5.The learned counsel appearing for the party respondents Crl.M.C. No. 6399 of 2016 2 submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. Attention of this Court is invited to the affidavits filed by them to buttress their submission. It is urged that the dispute is purely personal in nature and would not affect public peace or tranquility. Summing up it is prayed that the criminal proceedings be terminated to promote peace and harmony. - 6.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. - 7.I have considered the submissions . ## 8.In **Gian singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303** Apex Court has laid down that in appropriate cases, the Crl.M.C. No. 6399 of 2016 3 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_ _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:_ Crl.M.C. No. 6399 of 2016 4 _(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. No. 6399 of 2016 5 In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A1 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.C. No. 366 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Hosdurg are quashed. **Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE** SKS //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE