High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-10-03Quashed the proceedings against the petitioners...

Muneer and Others v. State of Kerala and Anil and Sumesh

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No. 5593 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J
Judgment Date: 2016-10-03
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is allowed; the proceedings pending as CC 2939/2014 before the JMFC Karunagappally are quashed and Annexure A2 and the final report are to be discharged.
Final Disposition: Quashed the proceedings against the petitioners in CC 2939/2014; petition allowed under Section 482 CrPC.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Muneer
Kiran Prakash
Akshay
Shameer
Midhun
ANOY

Respondents

State of Kerala through the Sub Inspector of Police, Oachira Police Station
Anil, S/o. Sankaran
Sumesh, S/o. Mohanan

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri.K.Siju
• Smt.S.Seetha

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor Sri. Amjad Ali
• Adv. Sri.A.Muhammed Raffi

Case Synopsis & Summary

The Kerala High Court, in a criminal misc. case under Section 482 CrPC, exercises its extraordinary power to quash criminal proceedings in CC 2939/2014, pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Karunagappally. The petitioners—Muneer, Kiran Prakash, Akshay, Shameer, Midhun, and Anoy—were charged with offences under IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 294(b) read with Section 149. Respondents 2 and 3 (Anil and Sumesh) and the State, through the public prosecutor, report that the parties have mediated and settled their disputes, desiring to live in harmony and seeking to quash the criminal proceedings. The Public Prosecutor initially reserved his stance on quashing, but relied on precedents such as Gian Singh v. State of Punjab to argue that Section 482 CrPC powers extend beyond private disputes. The court notes that the alleged offences do not involve grave violence or a societal impact and emphasizes that the private settlement negates the ongoing necessity of prosecution. Citing Gian Singh and the related guidelines (Narinder Singh; Rajesh Kamath J.), the judge finds the matter falls within the civil-flavoured spectrum suitable for quashing. The order ultimately allows the petition and quashes the proceedings against the petitioners in CC 2939/2014.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the CrPCSections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 294(b) read with Section 149 IPCSection 320 CrPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC can be based on private settlements (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab)
Guidelines for settlement-based quashing in private disputes (Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab; Rajesh Kamath J. v. Mohana Kurup)
Power under Section 482 CrPC is not limited to Section 320 CrPC and can be exercised in civil-flavoured cases involving private disputes

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that the private settlement between the respondents has resolved their disputes and the ongoing criminal proceedings would be an unnecessary and oppressive continuation of a dispute that has already been settled. They rely on the High Court’s and Supreme Court authorities recognizing that Section 482 CrPC’s power can quash proceedings in cases with predominant civil or private dispute characteristics, especially where the settlement obviates the need for continued prosecution and protects private interests. They argue that continuing the case would be futile and oppressive given the settlements reached, and that the public interest does not warrant a prolonged inquiry into conduct that has already been harmonized by the parties.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents (through their affidavits) indicate they have settled the dispute and wish to discontinue criminal proceedings. They acknowledge the private nature of the dispute but contend that the maintenance of criminal proceedings would affect the harmony sought through settlement. The prosecution initially expressed reservations about invoking 482 CrPC powers in a crime with public order aspects but later recognizes the potential for quashing given the private settlement, especially in light of Gian Singh’s pronouncements and subsequent guidelines.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another	2012 (10) SCC 303	Positive	Cited as the foundational authority for using the extraordinary power under Section 482 CrPC to quash prosecutions based on private settlements in cases with predominantly private disputes.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	2014 (6) SCC 466	Mentioned Only	Mentioned as providing guidelines on settlement-based quashing but not elaborated as controlling authority in detail within this judgment.
Rajesh Kamath J. and Others v. Mohana Kurup and Others	AIR 2016 SC 2452	Mentioned Only	Cited for its guidelines on quashing in settlement contexts; treated as guidance rather than a binding, detailed application in this case.

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 Muneer and Others v. State of Kerala and Anil and Sumesh 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** **MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/11TH ASWINA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 5593 of 2016 () ---------------------------** **AGAINST CC 2939/2014 of J.M.F.C. - I, KARUNAGAPPALLY CRIME NO. 1751/2014 OF OCHIRA POLICE STATION , KOLLAM** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED : ----------------------** ## **1. MUNEER** **S/O NADEER, AGED 20YEARS, KAVILAYIL HOUSE, KULATHOOR, MURI, KULASEKHARAPURAM VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT** ## **2. KIRAN PRAKASH** **S/O. PRAKASH, AGED 21 YEARS, POURNAMI, CHANGANKULANGARA MURI, OACHIRA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT** ## **3. AKSHAY** **S/O. ANIL KUMAR, AGEED 20 YEARS, CHANDRAMANGALAM HOUSE,CHANGANKULANGARA MURI, OACHIRA VILLAGE,KOLLAM DISTRICT** ## **4. SHAMEER** **S/O. SALIM AGED 20 YEARS, PALAMOOTTIL PADEETTATHIL HOUSE, CHANGANKULANGARA MURI, OACHIRA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT** ## **5. MIDHUN** **S/O. MOHAN, AGED 22 YEARS, MIDHUN NIVAS, KOTTAMPALLI MURI, OACHIRA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT** ## **6. ANOY** **S/O. SINOY, AGED 22 YEARS, PALAVILAYIL HOUSE, KUTHIRAPANDI MURI, THAZHAVA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT** ## **BY ADVS.SRI.K.SIJU SMT.S.SEETHA** ## **RESPONDENTS/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT& STATE:** **------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OACHIRA POLICE STATION REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031** **2. ANIL, S/O. SANKARAN, AGED 23 YEARS, MANNARETHU KIZHAKKATHIL, MANAPPALLY SOUTH, PAVUMBA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT 690518** ## **3. SUMESH** - **S/O. MOHANAN,AGED 19 YEARS, SURESH BHAVANAM, MANAPPALLY SOUTH PAVUMBA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT 690518** **R2,3 BY ADV. SRI.A.MUHAMMED RAFFI** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.MC.No. 5593 of 2016 ()** **---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:** **-----------------------** **ANNEXURE 1: THE COPY OF FIR WITH FIS IN CRIME NO.1751/2014 OF OACHIRA POLICE STATION** **ANNEXURE 2: THE COPY OF FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED IN CRIME NO.1751/2014** **ANNEXURE 3: THE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT REGARDING SETTLEMENT DATED 22.08.2016** **ANNEXURE 4: THE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT REGARDING SETTLEMENT DATED 22.08.2016.** **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL.** **-----------------------** ## **TRUE COPY** **P.A. TO JUDGE.** **kp** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 5593 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 3[rd] 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.2939 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Karunagappally. In the said case, they stand indicted for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 294(b) read with Section 149 of the IPC. - 2.The prosecution allegation is that on 4.10.2014 at 6 pm, the petitioners formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common object wrongfully restrained respondents 2 and 3 and after abusing them inflicted injuries. - 3.The respondents 2 and 3 have entered appearance through their counsel and they have filed separate Crl.M.C. No.5593 of 2016 -2- affidavits before this Court, wherein it is stated that the parties have mediated the matter and have decided to settle all the disputes between them and to live in harmony. They assert that they do 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. Crl.M.C. No.5593 of 2016 -3- 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 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 Code, for quashing criminal proceedings, was held to be exercisable in criminal cases having an overwhelming Crl.M.C. No.5593 of 2016 -4- and predominatingly civil flavour, particularly offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership, or such like transactions. Or 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 party respondents have settled the matter, the possibility of Crl.M.C. No.5593 of 2016 -5- conviction is remote and bleak and the continuation of the criminal case against the petitioners would be a futile exercise. It would also put the petitioners and the party respondents 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. AnnexureA2, final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.C.No.2939 of 2014 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Karunagappally are quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE** kp/-3.10.16