High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-03-08Disposed of by Dismissal (Petition for quashmen...

MUHAMMED NAZAR and others v. STATE OF KERALA and SANAL T.R.

Case / Petition Number:CRL.M.C. NO. 239 OF 2017 (also cited as CRL.MC NO. 239 OF 2022 in the header)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Haripal
Judgment Date: 2022-03-08
Court Decision / Holding: Dismissed. The court held that the petition for quashing is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed; the proceedings should not be quashed given the serious nature of the offences, the violent mob context, the potential mental depravity, and the accuseds’ antecedents. The trial would continue, with at least seven witnesses having already been examined at this stage.
Final Disposition: Disposed of by Dismissal (Petition for quashment dismissed)

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Muhammed Nazar
Abdul Khader
Nizamuddeen T.A.
Abhi@ Sainul Abid
Muhammed Jashid
Shanu
Adinas A.V.
Muhammed Nizamuddeen @ IjjU
Noushad P.N.
Anwar @ Annu

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
Sanal T.R.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv S. Jiji

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv M.M. Baby (for Sanal T.R.)
• Public Prosecutor (for State)
• Sri Hrithwik C.S. (Sr. Public Prosecutor)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case, driven by ten accused (Muhammad Nazar, Abdul Khader, Nizamuddeen T.A., Abhi@ Sainul Abid, Muhammad Jashid, Shanu, Adinas A.V., Muhammad Nizamuddeen alias Ijjju, Noushad P.N., Anwar alias Annu) challenging the continuation of proceedings in Crime No. 646/2017 of Kasaragod police station. The case originated from a July 23, 2017 incident where the accused, forming an unlawful assembly, allegedly attacked the 2nd respondent Sanal T.R. near Thalangara harbour and Malik Dinar hospital, asserting moral policing over the victim’s association with a woman from a different community. The petitioners moved to quash the proceedings invoking Section 482 CrPC on the ground of a settlement reached with the 2nd respondent. The State, through the Senior Public Prosecutor, opposed quashing, highlighting that several witnesses had already been examined, the offence involved brutality by a mob using deadly weapons, and several petitioners have grave criminal antecedents including prior Section 307 IPC cases. The court relied on the Supreme Court’s Gian Singh v. State of Punjab guidelines, emphasizing that ends of justice is the primary consideration and that serious offences involving moral depravity are typically not quashed even if there is a settlement. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, holding that the proceedings should continue and the trial should proceed. The matter is in progress before the trial court with witnesses already examined.

Provisions of Law Cited

IPC: Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 506(ii) and 308 read with Section 149

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ends of justice as the guiding principle for quashing under Section 482 CrPC (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab)
Gian Singh guidelines on not quashing serious offences despite settlement

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that since there was a settlement reached with the 2nd respondent, the proceedings should be quashed under the powers of a high court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., following the Supreme Court’s Gian Singh guidelines which emphasize allowing quashing when ends of justice are served by the settlement, especially in cases of lesser offences and where the victim consents. They argued that continuing the proceedings would amount to harassment and would send a wrong message to the public given the settlement. They emphasized the trial was at a stage with several witness testimonies already recorded.

Contentions of Respondents

The State and the complainant opposed quashing, arguing that the incident involved a violent mob with deadly weapons, constituting serious mental depravity. Several petitioners have grave criminal antecedents, including cases under Section 307 IPC; quashing would undermine the public interest and the ends of justice. The court was urged to follow Gian Singh’s principle but to assess the facts, seriousness, and potential impact on society. The prosecution highlighted the ongoing trial and the need to safeguard the victim’s rights and public safety.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and others	2012 (10) SCC 303	Positive	The Supreme Court’s guidelines on quashing under Section 482 CrPC were invoked; the judgment is cited as the governing framework, emphasizing that ends of justice requires caution in quashing serious offences despite settlement.

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 NAZAR and others v. STATE OF KERALA and SANAL T.R. 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 K.HARIPAL** **TUESDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1943** ## **CRL.MC NO. 239 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:** - **1 MUHAMMED NAZAR AGED 32 YEARS** - **ASM HOUSE, KHAZI LANE, THALANGARA P.O., KASARAGOD, PIN - 671121** - **2 ABDUL KHADER AGED 30 YEARS** - **MISRIYA MANZIL, M.D. NAGAR, THALANGARA VILLAGE & POST, KASARAGOD, PIN - 671121** - **3 NIZAMUDDEEN T.A. AGED 28 YEARS** - **SULAIMAN JUNAID MANZIL, WEST HILL, THALANGARAR POST & VILLAGE, KASARAGOD., PIN - 671121** - **4 ABHI@ SAINUL ABID AGED 30 YEARS** - **C.A.P. HOUSE, NEAR RAILWAY GATE, THAYALANGADI, KASABA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD., PIN - 671121** - **5 MUHAMMED JASHID AGED 28 YEARS MASTER MANZIL, PALLIKKADAN HOUSE, THALANGARA POST & VILLAGE, KASARAGOD., PIN - 671121** - **6 SHANU AGED 29 YEARS** - **H. NO. 23/183, PALLIKKAL HOUSE, THALANGARA VILLAGE & POST, KASARAGOD., PIN - 671121** - **7 ADINAS A.V.** - **AGED 32 YEARS** - **H. NO./ 24/99, PADINHAR HOUSE, THALANGARA VILLAGE & POST, KASARAGOD., PIN - 671121** - **8 MUHAMMED NIZAMUDDEEN @ IJJU AGED 28 YEARS** - **H.NO. 29/45, NECHIPADUPPU, THALANGARA VILLAGE & POST, KASARAGOD., PIN - 671121** - **9 NOUSHAD P.N.** - **AGED 35 YEARS** - **H.NO. 23/166, KHAZI LANE, THALANGARA PIOST & VILLAGE, KASARAGOD, PIN - 671121** - **10 ANWAR @ ANNU, MUCHIRIYAN ANNU** **Crl. M. C. NO. 239 OF 2017** **2** ## **AGED 28 YEARS** **KMC 24/415, PALLIKKAL THALANGARA VILLAGE & POST, PIN - 671121 BY ADV S.JIJI** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** - **2 SANAL T.R.** **AGED 30 YEARS** **THUNDIYIL HOUSE, KARTHIKAPURAM VILLAGE, CHERUPUZHA, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670511 BY ADV M.M.BABY** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SR.PP - SRI. HRITHWIK C.S.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl. M. C. NO. 239 OF 2017** **3** ## **O R D E R** Petitioners are the accused in S.C. No. 215 of 2019 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Kasaragod which originated from the final report in Crime No. 646 of 2017 of Kasaragod police station where offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 506(ii), 308 read with Section 149 of the IPC are alleged against the accused persons, ten in number. 2. The allegation is that on 23.07.2017 at 12.30 hours, at Thalankara old harbour and then around the premises of Malik Dinar hospital, accused persons along with some identifiable persons formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, owing to the reason that CW1 Sanal had taken a lady of a different community in a car, the 1[st] accused wrongfully restrained and intimidated that he would be killed; 2[nd] accused beat him with a wooden reaper, a dangerous weapon and caused him injuries; accused Nos. 3 and 4 assaulted him with iron rods. Now the final report has been **Crl. M. C. NO. 239 OF 2017** **4** laid with the above-stated allegations and the case is pending before the Assistant Sessions Court. It appears that the trial has already commenced. Petitioners have moved this Court seeking to quash the proceedings on the ground of settlement reached with the 2[nd] respondent. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Senior Public Prosecutor who seriously opposed the application for settlement. 4. Even though the learned Senior Public Prosecutor has confirmed the settlement reached with the 2[nd] respondent, who had given a further statement stating that the matter is settled, has opposed quashing the proceedings. According to him, petitioners were virtually doing moral policing. Moreover, accused Nos. 4 and 5 are having serious criminal antecedents to their credit. The 4[th] accused is involved in fifteen other cases including two cases alleging offence under Section 307 of the IPC and three other Sessions Cases, whereas the 5[th] petitioner has seven other cases including offence under Section 307 of **Crl. M. C. NO. 239 OF 2017** **5** the IPC. 5. After hearing counsel on both sides, I am also convinced that the proceedings cannot be quashed as prayed for by the petitioners. Firstly the trial of the case is in progress, the memorandum of evidence indicates that at least seven witnesses have already been examined on the side of the prosecution. Secondly, it is a case in which a violent mob was attacking the 2[nd] respondent ostensibly for no reason. The reason shown is that he had removed a lady from another community in the car. As rightly suggested by the learned Senior Public Prosecutor if such a case is allowed to be quashed on the ground of settlement, that would send a wrong message to the public. 6. In the decision reported in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and others [2012 (10) SCC 303]** the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down guidelines while considering application for quashing proceedings on the ground of settlement, invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. According to the **Crl. M. C. NO. 239 OF 2017** **6** Apex Court securing ends of justice is the ultimate guiding factor. Serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc, or other offences of mental depravity under the Indian Penal Code or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes are saved from being considered for quashing on the ground of settlement. Following these guidelines, it is certain that petitioners are not entitled to get the proceedings quashed. 7. Firstly, as noticed earlier, it was a case in which a mob, armed with deadly weapons were rounding up and assailing the 2[nd] respondent on the ground that he had removed a lady of a different community in a car. In other words, they were doing moral policing. That means this is an offence involving mental depravity. Moreover, brutal attack was unleashed against an unarmed single person and caused him serious injuries. 8. Again, at least a few of the petitioners are fugitive criminals having very grave criminal antecedents. In the circumstances, the alleged settlement reached with the 2[nd] respondent cannot be reckoned for quashing the proceedings **Crl. M. C. NO. 239 OF 2017** **7** under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The Criminal Miscellaneous Case is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Dismissed. **Sd/K. HARIPAL JUDGE** RMV/08/03/2022 8 **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 239/2022** |**PETITIONER ANNEXURES**|| |---|---| |**Annexure1**|**CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED BEFORE THE**| ||**JFM COURT, KASARAGOD IN CR. NO. 646/2017 OF KASARAGOD**| ||**POLICE STATION**| |**Annexure2**|**THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 04-01-2022 SWORN BY THE 2ND**| ||**RESPONDENT**| **TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE**