High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-10-04Quashed; proceedings in Crime No.378/2016 pendi...

NIPUN, SWALIH and MICAH SOOSAN MANI v. STATE OF KERALA and P.S.ISMAYIL

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C.No. 4222 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
Judgment Date: 2016-10-04
Court Decision / Holding: This petition is allowed; Annexure-1 FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom in Crime No. 378/2016 of Nilambur Police Station are quashed.
Final Disposition: Quashed; proceedings in Crime No.378/2016 pending against the petitioners are quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Nipun
Swalih
Micah Soosan Mani

Respondents

State of Kerala represented through the Sub Inspector of Police, Nilambur Police Station, Malappuram District
P.S.Ismayil (2nd Respondent)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K.B. Arunkumar
• Jaison Abraham

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Ranjit Babu (Advocate for 2nd Respondent)
• Public Prosecutor, Sri. T.R. Renjith

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C. No. 4222 of 2016) filed under Section 482 CrPC before the Kerala High Court by three accused persons—Nipun, Swalih and Micah Soosan Mani—challenging the registration and continued proceedings in Crime No. 378/2016 of Nilambur Police Station. The prosecution alleged that on 05.06.2016 the police discovered a car that had slipped off the road; three individuals were detained and a case registered under Sections 41(d) and 102 CrPC, later adding Section 379 IPC after it was found the vehicle allegedly belonged to P.S. Ismayil. The 2nd respondent (Ismayil) contended the car was stolen from him and that he bore no grievance against the petitioners, a fact he clarified in a sworn affidavit. The State contends the car theft should be pursued, whereas the petitioners argue mala fide registration and lack of offence. The High Court cites Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Other, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, and Rajesh Kamath J. v. Mohana Kurup to illustrate that Section 482 CrPC powers extend beyond 320 CrPC and can be exercised in private settlements and civil-flavour cases where persistence would be oppressive. The judge ultimately finds the offence not grave, the private settlement plausible, and exercises 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings, deeming continuation unjust and oppressive for all parties.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 CrPCSection 41(d) CrPCSection 102 CrPCSection 379 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Quashing powers under Section 482 CrPC extend beyond Section 320 CrPC; may be based on private settlements and civil-flavour disputes
Settlements between private parties can justify quashing criminal proceedings
Offences with private or personal wrongs may be susceptible to quashing, whereas crimes against society are generally not
Judicial guidelines (Narinder Singh; Rajesh Kamath J. v. Mohana Kurup) support the use of 482 CrPC in appropriate private/dispute contexts
Overwhelming and predominating civil flavour justifies exercise of extraordinary powers under 482 CrPC

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that the crime registration was with mala fide intent and that the alleged offence did not attract the cited sections; the car reportedly stolen from the 2nd respondent, who has filed an affidavit stating he has no grievance against the petitioners and that the matter should not have been pursued; relying on Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, they argued for quashing given the private settlement and lack of serious public interest in continuing the case.

Contentions of Respondents

The State and the de facto complainant argued that the car theft had occurred, the car belonged to the 2nd respondent, and the case should not be quashed on mere private settlement; however, the 2nd respondent later stated he had no grievance. The response emphasizes that the ongoing proceedings were proper given the alleged theft and the potential impact on the public interest.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another	2012 (10) SCC 303	Positive	Used to justify the breadth of Section 482 CrPC powers beyond quashing within Section 320 scope and allowing quashing based on private settlements in civil-flavour cases.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	2014 (6) SCC 466	Positive	cited for guidelines on exercise of 482 CrPC in appropriate private settlements context.
Rajesh Kamath J. and Others v. Mohana Kurup and Others	AIR 2016 SC 2452	Positive	cited as recent Supreme Court guidance supporting 482 CrPC quashing in suitable private dispute scenarios.

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 NIPUN, SWALIH and MICAH SOOSAN MANI v. STATE OF KERALA and P.S.ISMAYIL 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 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/12TH ASWINA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 4222 of 2016 () ---------------------------** ## **CRIME NO. 378/2016 OF NILAMBUR POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3::** **--------------------------------** ## **1. NIPUN** **AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL AZIZ, CHENAKKARAKUNNEL (H), KAVUMKARA, MOOVATTUPUZHA, MULAKKOOR AMSOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** ## **2. SWALIH** **AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMEDKUTTY, KULAMBIL HOUSE, KUDARANJI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** ## **3. MICAH SOOSAN MANI** **AGED 26 YEARS,** **D/O.M.M.MANI, B-1 PALACE, FLAT NO.8, KOTTARKAVU, MAVELIKKARA.** **BY ADVS.SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR JAISON ABRAHAM** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** **--------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NILAMBUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN 682031.** **CONTD...** **:2:** **Crl.MC.No. 4222 of 2016 ()** ## **---------------------------** ## **2. P.S.ISMAYIL** **AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.ABDU RAHIMAN, RESIDING AT 1-68, KARMALA HOUSE, P.C.ROAD, KARMALA (PO), PUTTUR TALUK, DAKSHINA KANARA DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE.568018** **R2 BY ADV. SRI.RANJIT BABU R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. T.R. RENJITH** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-10-2016, ALONG WITH CRMC. 5440/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **CONTD....** ## **:3:** **Crl.MC.No. 4222 of 2016 () ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-----------------------** **ANNEXURE-1: THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.378/2016 OF NILAMBUR POLICE STATION NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, NILAMBUR.** **ANNEXURE-2: THE NOTARISED AFFIDAVIT DATED 04.07.2016 EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL** **-----------------------** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A TO JUDGE** ## **SKS** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 4222 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## Dated 4[th ] October, 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **ORDER** - 1.This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. - 2.The petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No. 378 of 2016 of Nilambur Police Station. The prosecution allegation is that on 05.06.2016, Sub-Inspector of police, Nilambur Police Station came across a car which had slipped from the road and had fallen down in the small pit in the road margin near to Mulapadam bridge near Nilambur. 3 persons were found near the car. When the behavior of the said persons roused suspiscion they were taken to the Police Station and initially a crime was registered under Section 41 (d) and 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. - 3.Further inquiry revealed that the car was owned by P.S.Ismayil, S/o Abdu Rehman, Karnataka/the 2[nd] Crl.M.C. No. 4222 of 2016 2 respondent herein and that the said car had been stolen from his possession. On its basis Section 379 of the IPC was added. - 4.It is the case of the petitioners, that the registration of the crime is with malifide intent and that the offence is not attracted. The de facto complainant has been arrayed as the 2[nd] respondent in the petition. He had entered his appearance through counsel and filed Annexure-II, affidavit, wherein he asserted that he is the registered owner of the car bearing registration No. KA-21-M-9976, Swift and that he has no grievance against the petitioners . It is his case that the car had not been stolen from his possession by the petitioner . - 5.The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions, submits that when it was revealed that the car had been stolen from the possession of the 2[nd] respondent, the case was Crl.M.C. No. 4222 of 2016 3 made over to the RT Nagar Police Station, Bangalore wthin whose jurisdiction the offence was allegedly committed. The accused was also forwarded but as no crime was registered at Bangalore, the accused were sent back. According to the Public Prosecutor, the 2[nd] respondent has given a statement before the Investigating officer that the petitioner has no grievance against the petitioners herein. 6.Question is whether the proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed in the light of the affidavit filed by the 2[nd] respondent. 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 Crl.M.C. No. 4222 of 2016 4 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, particularly offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership, or such like transactions. Or Crl.M.C. No. 4222 of 2016 5 even offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc. or family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal. 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. 4222 of 2016 6 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-1 FIR and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as crime No. 378 of 2016 of Nilambur Police Station are quashed. **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE** SKS //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE