High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2014-04-07Quashed the proceedings; petition allowed under...

NASEEMUDEEN @ NISSAM v. KAREEM, ALI and STATE OF KERALA

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No. 1966 of 2014

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Ramakrishnan
Judgment Date: 2014-04-07
Court Decision / Holding: Petition allowed; further proceedings in CC No. 858/2010 (Crime No.307/2010, Poovar Police Station) are quashed under Section 482 CrPC. Office to communicate the order to the concerned court.
Final Disposition: Quashed the proceedings; petition allowed under Section 482 CrPC.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Naseemudeen @ Nissam

Respondents

Kareem
Ali
State of Kerala, represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. S. Mohammed Al Rafi

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Ajith Krishnan R
• Smt. S. Hyma (Public Prosecutor)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 CrPC filed by Naseemu deen @ Nissam, the accused in CC No.858/2010 (Crime No.307/2010 of Poovar Police Station), seeking to quash proceedings initiated against him for offences under IPC sections 451, 323 and 394. The dispute between the parties, who are neighbors, arose from an incident leading to registration of a crime and filing of a final report. The core factual posture is that the defacto complainant (the 1st respondent) and the accused resolved their differences through mediation, restoring their relationship. The complainants and injured party express no desire to prosecute further; however, some offences are non-compoundable, so the petitioner sought quashing under Section 482 CrPC rather than compounding. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that continuing the criminal case would be pointless in light of the settlement and that there is no public interest involved. The Public Prosecutor opposed, noting no prior criminal antecedents but arguing against quashing. The court relied on the Supreme Court’s Gian Singh doctrine recognizing that in private disputes, where settlement exists and conviction is unlikely, quashing may be appropriate to promote settlement and avoid oppression. Following these considerations, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings in CC No.858/2010, directing communication of the order to the concerned court. The decision underscores the principle that, where public interest is not implicated and settlement preserves relationships, quashing under 482 CrPC is permissible to end the dispute efficiently.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)Sections 451, 323, 394 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 4 KLT 108 (SC) – High Court may quash criminal proceedings in private disputes where settlement exists if ends of justice require it; continuation would be oppressive or an abuse of process; conviction remote and justice requires ending the case.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the dispute between neighbours has been settled amicably, the relationship restored, and the defacto complainant and other injured parties do not wish to prosecute further. Since some offences are non-compoundable, protection under Section 482 CrPC is sought to quash Annexure A (FIR) and Annexure B (final report) and consequently the proceedings in CC 858/2010. The petitioner emphasizes that there is no public interest involvement and continuing the case would be unjust given the settlement and remote possibility of conviction; relying on Gian Singh, it argues the ends of justice require quashing to promote settlement and avoid oppression.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents’ counsel acknowledges settlement and lack of public interest but the Public Prosecutor opposes quashing, arguing that the offences have been registered and need to be adjudicated to maintain law and order. However, because the parties are private individuals, and the matter arises from a private dispute, the court is urged to consider whether quashing would undermine the statutory processes or public interest. Overall, the respondents advocate maintaining the proceedings unless the settlement and absence of public interest demonstrate that quashing is appropriate under the law and the Gian Singh principle.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)	Positive	Cited and applied by the High Court to justify quashing private-dispute criminal cases where a settlement exists, asserting ends of justice and remote likelihood of conviction justify quashing.

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 NASEEMUDEEN @ NISSAM v. KAREEM, ALI and STATE OF KERALA 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.RAMAKRISHNAN** **MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2014/17TH CHAITHRA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1966 of 2014** ## **---------------------------------** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC 858/2010 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, NEYYATTINKARA CRIME NO. 307/2010 OF POOVAR POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** **--------------** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:** **-------------------------------------** **NASEEMUDEEN @ NISSAM, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED ILLIAS, SUMMAYA MANZIL, ELIPPATHOPPU, POOVAR, THIRUPURAM VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/STATE:** **---------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. KAREEM, AGED 30 YEARS,** **S/O.MUTHALIF, PANDAKASALA VEEDU, E.M.S.COLONY, POOVAR P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 121.** ## **2. ALI, AGED 42 YEARS,** **S/O.AHAMED, SAHIB VEETTIL, NEAR JUMA MASJID, POOVAR P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 121.** **3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **R1&2 BY ADV. SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-04-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **PJ** **Crl.MC.No. 1966 of 2014 ----------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES ----------------------------------------ANNEXURE-A: TRUE COPY OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.307/2010 OF POOVAR POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE-B: TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.307/2010 POOVAR POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE-C: ATTESTED AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE IST RESPONDENT ANNEXURE-D: ATTESTED AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES --------------------------------------------** **NIL.** **/ TRUE COPY /** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **PJ** K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No. 1966 of 2014 - A --------------------------------------------------Dated this the 7[th] April, 2014 ## **O R D E R** This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed by the petitioner, who is the accused in C.C No. 858/2010 (Crime No.307/2010 of Poovar police station) pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II,Neyyattinkara for quashing the proceedings in view of the settlement under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). 2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner is the accused in C.C.No. 858/2010. The case was registered on the basis of the statement given by the defacto complainant 1[st] respondent against the petitioner alleging offences under Sections 451, 323 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation final report was filed and it was taken on file as C.C.No. 858/2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Neyyattinkara. Crl.M.C. No. 1966 of 2014 - A 2 3. Now the matter has been settled between the parties. The parties are neighbours. Due to the settlement, the relationship between them has been restored. On account of the settlement, defacto complainant and the other injured do not want to prosecute the case any further. Since some of the offences are non- compoundable in nature, he could not file application for compounding before the court below. No purpose will be served by proceeding with the case. So he has no other remedy except to approach this Court seeking the following relief: “For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash Annexure A First Information Report and Annexure B final report and further proceedings in C.C.No.858/2010 on the file of the Court of Judicial 1[st] Class Magistrate-II, Neyyattinkara in the interest of justice”. 4. The counsel for 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents appeared through counsel and submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties due to intervention of mediators and their relationship has been restored. They do not want to prosecute the case any further. They filed Annexure C and D affidavits stating these facts. Crl.M.C. No. 1966 of 2014 - A 3 5. The counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in view of the settlement no purpose will be served in proceeding with the case. So, he prayed for allowing the application. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions as directed by this Court, submitted that there is no other case against the petitioner and there is no criminal antecedents but opposed the application. 7. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is the accused in C.C.No. 858/2010 which was originated on the basis of a statement given by defacto complainants/1[st] respondent against the petitioner as Crime No.307/2010 alleging offences under Sections 451, 323 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation final report was filed and it is now pending as C.C. No.858/2010. 8. Now the matter has been settled between the parties. It is seen from affidavits and allegations in the petition that the parties are friends and the incident occurred due to misunderstanding between them which resulted in registration of the crime and filing of the final report. The matter has been Crl.M.C. No. 1966 of 2014 - A 4 settled between the parties due to intervention of mediators. On account of the settlement original relationship between them has been restored and the defacto complainant and the other injured do not want to prosecute the case. Further, on account of the settlement, there is no possibility of conviction also, if the case is allowed to proceed with. The case is not a case of public interest affecting public safety or affecting the society at large. It is a private dispute which resulted in registration of the crime and filing of the final report. 9. Further in the decision reported in **Gian Singh v. State** **of Punjab** (2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: “But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc., or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because Crl.M.C. No. 1966 of 2014 - A 5 of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. 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 the criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and 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 affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 10. In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision also and considering the fact that the matter has been settled between the parties and no public interest is involved and as it is not a case of offence affecting the society at large and in view of the settlement, the original relationship has been Crl.M.C. No. 1966 of 2014 - A 6 restored between the parties and no purpose will be served by proceeding with the case as conviction will be remote and it will be wastage of judicial time, this Court feels that it is a fit case where power under Section 482 of the Code has to be invoked to quash the proceedings in order to promote the settlement and restoration of relationship between the parties and the pendency of this case should not be a hurdle for the same. So, the petition is allowed and further proceedings in C.C.No 858/2010 (Crime No.307/2010 Poovar police station) pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Neyyattinkara as against the petitioner is quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately. ## Sd/- ## **K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE** rka /true copy/ P.S to Judge .