Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgePetition allowed; proceedings qua the petitione...

Muhammed Rinas and others v. State of Kerala and Najmudeen

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No. 6077 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
Judgment Date
2016-10-21
Court Decision / Holding
This petition is allowed. The petitioner’s CC 1219/2015 proceedings and the final report are quashed, and all further proceedings pursuant thereto are extinguished.
Final Disposition
Petition allowed; proceedings qua the petitioners quashed and disposed of in favor of quashing the CC 1219/2015 proceedings.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Muhammed Rinas
  • Jamsheed
  • Haris K
  • Shahin P.C
  • Haris T.P
  • Mithlaj K.J

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
  • Najmudeen (De facto Complainant)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri. Gireesh Pankajakshan

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri Saiju S.R.
  • • Sri Amjad Ali (Public Prosecutor)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C. No. 6077 of 2016) filed in the High Court of Kerala challenging the order/judgment in CC No. 1219/2015 of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kunnamangalam, arising from Crime No. 950/2015 of the Kunnamangalam Police Station. The petitioners, six students of MES Arts and Science College at Chathamangalam, Kozhikode, are accused of offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 143, 147, 148 read with 149 IPC, for allegedly restraining the de facto complainant and causing hurt on 04.09.2015 with a key and a stone. The 2nd respondent Najmudeen, the de facto complainant, appears and states he has no objection to quashing the criminal proceedings. The Public Prosecutor expresses reservations about invoking Section 482 CrPC, though no other cases are reported against the petitioners. The Court relies on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 to reiterate that High Courts can quash under 482 even where there is a settlement between private parties and where the dispute has a civil flavour, while Narinder Singh and Rajesh Kamath J. provide related guidelines. After considering the gravity of the offence, lack of significant societal impact, and the settled dispute between parties, the judge concludes that continuing the case would be oppressive. The petition is allowed and CC 1219/2015 proceedings and the final report are quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of CrPCSections 341, 323, 324, 143, 147, 148 read with 149 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 10 SCC 303
  • Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466
  • Rajesh Kamath J. and Others v. Mohana Kurup and Others (AIR 2016 SC 2452)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that, in light of the settlement arrived at between the parties and the settled nature of the dispute, it is appropriate for the High Court to exercise its powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings. They rely on the settled position in Gian Singh (2012) and seek avoidance of futility and oppression by continuing the case given the lack of grave offence or societal impact.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor expresses reservations about using the extraordinary powers under Section 482 and cautions that quashing criminal proceedings may undermine the interest of justice in cases of offences against public order. The de facto complainant Najmudeen expresses no objection to quashing. The respondents rely on the need to assess the gravity of the offence and the broader societal interest, but acknowledge the absence of prior reported offences against the petitioners.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another2012 (10) SCC 303PositiveCited to support the use of 482 CrPC quashing based on private settlements and civil flavour of disputes; establishes that such quashing is permissible beyond Section 320 CrPC.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab2014 (6) SCC 466Mentioned OnlyReferenced for guidelines, but not directly applied in this decision.
Rajesh Kamath J. and Others v. Mohana Kurup and OthersAIR 2016 SC 2452Mentioned OnlyMentioned as part of the guideline framework without direct application in the ruling.

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 Rinas and others v. State of Kerala and Najmudeen 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 FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/29TH ASWINA, 1938 Crl.MC.No. 6077 of 2016 () --------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 1219/2015 of J.M.F.C.,KUNNAMANGALAM DATED CRIME NO. 950/2015 OF KUNNAMANGALAM POLICE STATION , KOZHIKODE PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO. 1 TO 6: -------------------------------- 1. MUHAMMED RINAS AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. ALI, PARAPPARAMMAL, KIZHAKKOTHU P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 582. 2. JAMSHEED AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL ASIS, NADUKUNNUMEEL HOUSE, KIZHAKKOTHU P.O., KOZHIKODE - 673 571. 3. HARIS K AGED 21 YARS, S/O. ABUBAKER, KEELATHU HOSUE, KUMARANELLOOR P.O., MUKKAM, KOZHIKODE. 4. SHAHIN P.C AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. ABDHU, PULAKKACHALIL HOUSE, KARRASSERY, KOZHIKODE. 5. HARIS T.P AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. ABUBEKKAR, THELERIPULPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHERUVADY, KOZHIKODE. 6. MITHLAJ K.J AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. ABDURAHIMANKUTTY, KANDARU THODIKAYIL HOUSE, MALAYAMMA P.O., NIT KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE. CONTD... :2: Crl.MC.No. 6077 of 2016 () --------------------------- BY ADV. SRI.GIREESH PANKAJAKSHAN RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT, DE FACTO COMPLAINANT & INJURED: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. 2. NAJMUDHEEN AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED MUSLIYAR, CRESENT HOUSE, AMBALAKANDY, PUTHOOR, KOZHIKODE - 673 016. R2 BY ADV. SRI.SAIJU S. R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CONTD.... **==> picture [23 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** Crl.MC.No. 6077 of 2016 () --------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- A1 THE PHOTOCOPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO. 950/2015 OF KUNNAMANGALAM POLICE STATION. A2 THE PHOTOCOPY OF FINAL OF FINAL REPORT CRIME NO. 950/2015 OF KUNNAMANGALAM POLICE STATION. A3 AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY NAJMUDHEEN, 2ND RESPONDENT/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT IN CRIME NO. 950/2015 PENGING AS CC NO. 1219/2015 WITH THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KUNNAMANGALAM. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL ----------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE SKS ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J. ---------------------------------Crl. M.C. No. 6077 of 2016 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 21[st] day of October, 2016** ## **O R D E R** - 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. 1219/2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kunnamangalam. In the said case, they stand indicted under Sections 341, 323, 324, 143, 147, 148 r/w 149 of the IPC. - 2.The petitioners herein as well as the 2[nd] respondent were students of M.E.S. Arts and Science College, Chathamangalam, Kozhikode. The prosecution allegation is that on 04.09.2015, the petitioners had wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and voluntarily caused hurt to him by assaulting him with a key and a stone. - 3.The 2[nd] respondent has entered appearance through his counsel and has filed Annexure-III affidavit wherein he has stated that the petitioners are his friends and that he has Crl.M.C. No. 6077 of 2016 -2- no objection in terminating the criminal proceedings. He asserts in the affidavit 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 Crl.M.C. No. 6077 of 2016 -3- in respect of the powers vested in the High Court under 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, Crl.M.C. No. 6077 of 2016 -4- particularly offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership, or such like transactions. 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 Crl.M.C. No. 6077 of 2016 -5- 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-I final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.C. No. 1219 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kunnamangalam are quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE** SKS //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE