High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-06-07Petition allowed; all further proceedings again...

NAASARUDEEN @ NASAR v. STATE OF KERALA & ANSAR & JALALUDNEEN

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No. 2982 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date: 2016-06-07
Court Decision / Holding: All further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C. No. 73 of 2012 are quashed.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; all further proceedings against petitioners in C.C.No.73 of 2012 are quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

NaasaruDeen @ Nasar
Sameer
Hussain
Shefik
Shafi
Nishaad
Shafier

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
Ansar
Jalaludneen

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Sri A.S. Shammy Raj

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor Sareena George (R1)
• Sri K. Rajesh Kannan (R2 & R3)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a criminal miscellaneous case under Section 482 CrPC in the Kerala High Court challenging the continued proceedings in C.C. No. 73 of 2012 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Nedumangadu, arising from Crime No. 1803/2011 of Nedumangad Police Station. The seven petitioners-accused (Nos. 1 to 7) contend that the dispute with the private respondents has been amicably settled and that continuing the prosecution would be oppressive and unjust in light of the settlement. The 2nd respondent Ansar and 3rd respondent Jalaludneen have sworn affidavits stating that they and the petitioners wish to live in peace and do not desire the criminal proceedings to continue. The Public Prosecutor points out that on the same day another case was registered against some petitioners for offences including IPC Section 308 and Arms Act provisions. The court notes the presence of offences in the case (IPC 143, 147, 148, 149, 294(b), 323, 324) and acknowledges that quashing is permissible in appropriate cases where the dispute is private and settled. Relying on Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, and Yogendra Yadav, the court emphasizes ends of justice and avoidance of abuse of process, and concludes that continuing proceedings would be unfair. The petition is allowed and all further proceedings in C.C. 73 of 2012 are quashed against the petitioners.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 294(b), 323, 324Section 308 IPCSection 27 of the Arms Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ends of justice
Prevention of abuse of the process of any Court

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petition argues that the entire dispute between the petitioners and respondents 2 and 3 has been amicably settled, with affidavits sworn by the 2nd and 3rd respondents stating they do not wish to continue the criminal proceedings. The injuries in the associated case against some petitioners are minimal, as evidenced by the medical certificate. The petition contends that quashing the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC would not undermine public interest but would prevent oppression and harassment arising from prolonged litigation. Citing Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, and Yogendra Yadav, the petition stresses that where a private dispute has been resolved, the ends of justice require quashing to avoid abuse of process and to permit the parties to live in peace.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents 2 and 3, supported by the State, concede that amicable settlement has been reached and that continuing the proceedings would be oppressive and inconsistent with the parties’ peaceable settlement. They rely on established jurisprudence that, in appropriate cases, the High Court may quash criminal proceedings when there is a genuine compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer, especially where the offences are private in nature and continued prosecution would serve no public interest. They acknowledge the cross-reference to Gian Singh and Narinder Singh to justify quashing in light of settlement.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 (10) SCC 303	Positive	Cited as the leading precedent supporting quashing criminal proceedings in cases involving amicable settlement between victim and offender.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	2014 (6) SCC 466	Positive	Cited to reinforce the principle that the ends of justice may favour quashing where there is a genuine settlement and no public interest in continuation.
Yogendra Yadav and Others v State of Jharkhand and Another	2014 (9) SCC 653	Positive	Cited to underscore the inherent powers and the balance between ends of justice and abuse of process when private disputes are resolved.

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 NAASARUDEEN @ NASAR v. STATE OF KERALA & ANSAR & JALALUDNEEN 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** ## **TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/17TH JYAISHTA, 1938** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2982 of 2016** ## **---------------------------------** **CC.73/2012 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -II,NEDUMANGAD CRIME NO. 1803/2011 OF NEDUMANGAD POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **----------------------** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 7:** **----------------------------------------------** **1. NAASARUDEEN @ NASAR,AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED KUNJU, NAASAR MANZIL, VETTAMPALLI, PANAVOOR.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695568.** **2. SAMEER, AGED 39 YEARS,** - **S/O ABDUL RASHEED, SHEEJA MANZIL, VELLANCHIRA, VETTAMPALLI, PANAVOOR.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695568.** **3. HUSSAIN, AGED 40 YEARS,** - **S/O.BASHEER, M.M.MANZIL, VETTAMPALLI, PANAVOOR.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695568.** **4. SHEFIK, AGED 36 YEARS,** - **S/O.ASHARAF, M.M.HOUSE, MULAMOODU, VETTAMPALLI, PANAVOOR.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695568.** **5. SHAFI, AGED 39 YEARS,** - **S/O.MOHEMMED BASHEER, M.M.HOUSE, VETTAMPALLI, PANAVOOR.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695568.** **6. NISHAAD, AGED 28 YEARS,** - **S/O.MOHEMMED BASHEER, M.M.HOUSE, VETTAMPALLI, PANAVOOR.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695568.** **7. SHAJEER, AGED 35 YEARS,** - **S/O.BASHEER, M.M.HOUSE, VETTAMPALLI PANAVOOR.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695568.** **BY ADV. SRI.A.S.SHAMMY RAJ** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANTS:** **----------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.** **PJ** **....2/-** **..2..** **Crl.MC.No. 2982 of 2016** **---------------------------------** ## **2. ANSAR, AGED 28 YEARS,** - **S/O.NASAR, ANSAR MANZIL, MELE KALLIYODE ANAD VILLAGE, VETTAMPALLI, PANAVOOR.P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695568.** ## **3. JALALUDNEEN, AGED 52 YEARS,** - **S/O IBRAHIM, THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU, SANTHI NAGAR KOONANVENGA, PULLAMPARA VILLAGE, NEDUMANGADU.P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695541.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE R2 & 3 BY ADV. SRI.K.RAJESH KANNAN** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **PJ** **Crl.MC.No. 2982 of 2016 ---------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURE** ## **-------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE I: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO:1803/2011 OF NADUMANGADU POLICE STATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. ANNEXURE 2: COMPROMISE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ANNEXURE 3: COMPROMISE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURE ------------------------------------------** **NIL.** **/ TRUE COPY /** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **PJ** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 2982 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 7[th] June, 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **ORDER** The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 to 7 in C.C.No.73 of 2012 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of 1[st] Class-II, Nedumangadu involving offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 294(b), 323 and 324 of the IPC. The aforesaid case was registered at the instance of the 2[nd] respondent herein. 3[rd] respondent is one of the injured. 2. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) seeking to quash all further proceedings on the ground that the matter has been resolved amicably between the petitioners and respondents 2 and 3. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that during the pendency of the criminal proceedings the matter has been amicably resolved between the parties and they decided to live in peace and harmony. Crl.M.C. No.2982 of 2016 -2- It is also submitted that respondents 2 and 3 have sworn to separate affidavits wherein it is reported that the matter has been settled. They have also affirmed that they do not intend or wish that the criminal proceedings as against the petitioners should continue any further. The learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 endorsed the submission of the learned counsel and submitted that the matter has been amicably resolved. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that on the same day another crime was registered against some of the petitioners herein for the offences punishable under Section 308 of the IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners produced the charge sheet in the aforesaid Crime to contend that the injuries which were allegedly suffered by the _de facto_ complainant in the said crime were trivial. 6. I have gone through accident cum wound certificated dated 20.11.2011 of one Asharaf Khan. It only Crl.M.C. No.2982 of 2016 -3- speaks of some injury on the right elbow and tenderness contusions on the side of abdomen and elbow. Having regard to the gravity and seriousness of the allegations, I am of the view that the petitioners need not be deprived of the relief under Section 482 of the Code on the ground that another crime was registered as against them. 7. It is thus borne out from the submissions made at the bar that the parties have amicably settled their disputes with their free will and without any kind of pressure, influence or coercion. The compromise, it is felt, is voluntarily and genuine and can be acted upon. The law with regard to the settlement of criminal disputes on the strength of an amicable resolution of the disputes between the parties is no more res integra. ## 8. **In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC** **303),** 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. This view was reiterated in Crl.M.C. No.2982 of 2016 -4- ## **Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab. (2014) 6 SCC 466) and Yogendra Yadav and Others V State of Jharkhand and Another 2014 (9) SCC 653 .** 9. It was held that the inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. It was held that certain categories of cases involving heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute as those offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. But those cases where the wrong is basically private or personnel in nature and those in which the parties have resolved their entire dispute could fittingly be quashed by this Court taking into account the compromise between the offender and victim. In such cases the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and Crl.M.C. No.2982 of 2016 -5- continuation of criminal case would put accused and the _de facto_ complainant to great oppression and prejudice. 10. After having anxiously considered the submissions it is felt that it would be unfair and contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding. It would only tantamount to abuse of process of law to subject the parties to the ordeal of a protracted criminal proceeding despite the settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer. Settlement will augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony. In the result, this petition is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.73 of 2012 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of 1[st] Class-II, Nedumangadu shall stand quashed. **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE** kp/-8.6.16