Muhammed @ Mani and Others v. State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date: 2016-11-03
Court Decision / Holding: Petition allowed; Annexure-1 final report and all proceedings in C.C.No.1091/2013 against the petitioners are quashed.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; final report and all proceedings against the petitioners quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Muhammed @ Mani
Aabid
Rasheed
Latheef
Basheer

Respondents

State of Kerala
Ali
Abdul Rahiman

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K.B. Arunkumar
• Ranjit Babu

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor SRI.T.R. Renjith
• SRI.PRATHEESH.P.

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a criminal miscellaneous case filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash C.C. No.1091/2013 pending in the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ottapalam, in which accused Nos. 1 to 5 are charged with offences under IPC Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 448 read with Section 149. The petition contends that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved and is essentially personal, not affecting public peace, and that quashing the proceedings would promote peace and harmony. The State with the Public Prosecutor while acknowledging the settlement expressed reservations about invoking innate powers under Section 482, though no other criminal antecedents against the petitioners were noted. The court cites Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, clarifying that High Courts can quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases where there is settlement between victim and wrongdoer, guided by ends of justice and avoidance of abuse of process. The judge notes the offences are not grave, and that quashing would serve ends of justice and prevent waste of judicial resources. Ultimately, exercising extraordinary powers, the court allows the petition and quashes the final report and all proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.1091/2013.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of CrPCSections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 448 read with Section 149 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Amicable resolution of disputes between victim and wrongdoer leading to quashing
Ends of justice
Prevention of abuse of the process of any court
Abuse of process of law
Quashing of criminal proceedings in appropriate cases

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners seek quashing under Section 482 CrPC on the basis of an amicable settlement. They contend the dispute is personal, would not disturb public peace, and quashing would promote peace and justice. They rely on affidavits from the respondents indicating settlement and note that there are no other pending cases against them.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents acknowledge the amicable settlement and submit that the dispute is purely personal and would not affect public peace; they urge that termination of the criminal proceedings would promote peace and harmony. The Public Prosecutor expresses reservations about invoking 482 but does not dispute the lack of other cases against the petitioners.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 (10) SCC 303	Positive	High Court can quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases if there is an amicable settlement between victim and wrongdoer and continuing proceedings would be unfair or an abuse of process; ends of justice justify quashing.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	2014 (6) SCC 466	Positive	Restates that when parties settle, ends of justice and avoidance of abuse of process guide the quashing decision; high courts must form an opinion on these objectives.

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 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/12TH KARTHIKA, 1938** ## **Crl.MC.No. 7074 of 2016 ()** **--------------------------CC. NO.1091/2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, OTTAPPALAM.** ## **......** **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 5:** **----------------------------------------------------** **1. MUHAMMED @ MANI, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.VEERAN, KUNNATHU VEEDU, CHERABATTAKAVU P.O. PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** **2. AABID,** - **AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, KUNNATHU VEEDU, CHERABATTAKAVU P.O. PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** **3. RASHEED,** - **AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.MOIDEEN, KUNNATHU VEEDU, CHERABATTAKAVU P.O. PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** **4. LATHEEF,** - **AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.MOIDEEN, KUNNATHU VEEDU, CHERABATTAKAVU P.O. PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** **5. BASHEER,** - **AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.MOIDEEN, KUNNATHU VEEDU, CHERABATTAKAVU P.O. PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR, SRI.RANJIT BABU.** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND INJURED:** - **------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHERPULASSERY POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 032.** ## **Crl.MC.No. 7074 of 2016** **2. ALI, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.MARIAKKAR, THACHANKKATTIL HOUSE, PULIYANAMKUNNU, CHALAVARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679 505.** **3. ABDUL RAHIMAN. AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.MARIAKKAR, THACHANKKATTIL HOUSE, PULIYANAMKUNNU, CHALAVARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679 505.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.R. RENJITH. R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## rs. ## **Crl.MC.No. 7074 of 2016** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-** |**ANNEXURE**|**1**|**THE ACCUSED COPY OF THE FIR AND FINAL REPORT**| |---|---|---| |||**IN C.C. NO.1091/2013 NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF TH E**| |||**JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, OTTAPPALAM.**| |**ANNEXURE**|**2**|**THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 07/10/2016 EXECUTED BY THE**| |||**2ND RESPONDENT.**| |**ANNEXURE**|**3**|**THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 07/10/2016 EXECUTED BY THE**| |||**3RD RESPONDENT.**| ## **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:NIL.** ## **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** rs. ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.7074 of 2016** ## **----------------------------------------Dated this the 3[rd] 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 5 in C.C.No.1091 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ottapalam. They stand indicted for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 448 read with Section 149 of the IPC. - 3.The prosecution allegation is that on 2.12.2012 at 7.30 p.m., the petitioners formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common object, assaulted respondents 2 and 3 and caused injuries. Crl.M.C.7074/2016 2 - 4.Heard the submissions advanced. - 5.The learned counsel appearing for the party respondents submit 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] Crl.M.C.7074/2016 3 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_ _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.7074/2016 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.7074/2016 5 In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-1 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners in C.C.No.1091 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ottapalam are quashed. **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE** vps