High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2014-07-24Petition allowed; proceedings quashed; case dis...

NOUFAL and NASEER v. STATE OF KERALA and SULFEEKAR ALI

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C.No. 3627 of 2014

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Ramakrishnan, J.
Judgment Date: 2014-07-24
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.1137/2012 (Crime No.263/2012, Kadinamkulam Police Station) are quashed under Section 482 CrPC. The Office is directed to communicate the order to the concerned court, thereby disposing of the criminal miscellaneous case.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; proceedings quashed; case disposed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

NOUFAL
NASEER

Respondents

State of Kerala, represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kadinamkulam Police Station, represented through the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Sulfeekar Ali, S/O Abdul Vahid, President Muslim Jama-ath of the area

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Shajin S. Hameed

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor SMT. P. Maya R
• Adv. A.K. Rajesh

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C.No.3627 of 2014) filed by Noufal and Naseer, accused Nos. 1 and 2, seeking to quash proceedings in C.C.No.1137/2012 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal. The underlying crime, registered as Crime No.263/2012 of Kadinamkulam Police Station, alleged offences under Section 341 (wrongful restraint), 294(b) (unlawful speech in public), 323 (causing hurt), and 506(i) read with Section 34 IPC. The investigation led to a final report which the court took on file as C.C. No.1137/2012. The petition asserts that the dispute between the parties is private and has been resolved amicably through the intervention of community leaders. Since there is settlement, there is no realistic possibility of conviction, except for non-compoundable offences; hence proceedings should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC. The 2nd respondent (CW1) filed an affidavit stating settlement; the Public Prosecutor acknowledged the lack of other cases against the petitioners, albeit opposition to quashing from the State. The Kerala High Court relies on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab to hold that where a private dispute leads to registration of a crime and is settled, the court may quash to restore harmony, even if offences are non-compoundable. The court concludes that continuing the proceedings would waste judicial time and would undermine the settlement; accordingly, the petition is allowed and the proceedings in CC 1137/2012 are quashed. The order directs communication to the concerned court, disposing of the criminal miscellaneous case.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 CrPCSection 341 IPCSection 294(b) IPCSection 323 IPCSection 506(i) IPCSection 34 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)] – principle that private disputes settled amicably may justify quashing under Section 482 CrPC to promote harmony.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that an amicable settlement between the parties has been achieved through community intervention, and there is no realistic likelihood of conviction given the settlement. They rely on the principle that court intervention under Section 482 CrPC is justified to quash private disputes that have ended harmoniously, thereby conserving judicial time and resources and avoiding further damage to relations within the same community. They contend the offences are largely private and that, as per Gian Singh, non‑compoundable elements should not bar quashing when public interest is not involved and settlement has occurred.

Contentions of Respondents

The State opposes automatic quashing, arguing that non‑compoundable offences and public interest require careful scrutiny. Although a settlement exists, there is a public interest in ensuring that the offences, particularly non‑compoundable ones, do not evade accountability. The State notes the presence of witnesses and the potential impact on public peace and order. The Public Prosecutor asserts that while there may be a settlement, the court should not prematurely foreclose the prosecution without a full assessment of public interest, statutory constraints, and the terms of the settlement; the decision should balance private settlement with the duty to protect public order and accurate accountability.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012(4) KLT 108 (SC)	Positive	The court relies on Gian Singh to assert that where private disputes lead to a crime and settlement occurs, quashing under Section 482 CrPC to promote harmony is appropriate, even if some offences are non‑compoundable.

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 NOUFAL and NASEER v. STATE OF KERALA and SULFEEKAR ALI 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** ## **THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JULY 2014/2ND SRAVANA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3627 of 2014** ## **-----------------------------------** ## **C.C.NO. 1137/2012 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -I , ATTINGAL** **--------------------** ## **PETITIONERS / A1 & A2 :** **------------------------------------** **1. NOUFAL, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.BASHEER, AFSAL NIVAS, PERUMATHURA, SHARKARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **2. NASEER, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED NOOHU, KUZHIVILAKOM VEEDU, PERUMATHURA, SHARKARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **BY ADV. SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED** ## **RESPONDENTS / STATE & CW1:** **----------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADINAMKULAM POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** ## **2. SULFEEKAR ALI,** - **S/O.ABDUL VAHID, PRESIDENT MUSLIM JUMA - ATH, PERUMATHURA, KUNNIL VEEDU, MANJADIMOODU, SHARKARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 505.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.P.MAYA R2 BY ADV. SRI.A.K.RAJESH** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-07-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Msd. **Crl.MC.No. 3627 of 2014 ----------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:** **ANNEXURE A : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.263/2012 OF KADINAMKULAM POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE B : AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT/CW1 STATING SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTE.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:** **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A.TO JUDGE.** Msd. K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------Crl. M.C.No.3627 of 2014 ------------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 24[th] day of July, 2014 ## O R D E R This criminal miscellaneous case is filed by petitioners, who are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in C.C.1137/2012 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal, for quashing the proceedings, on the basis of the settlement under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called ‘the Code). 2. It is alleged in the petition that, the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No.263/2012 of Kadinamkulam police station, which was registered on the basis of the statement given by the 2[nd] respondent, alleging offences under Section 341, 294(b), 323 and 506(i) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, final report was filed and it is now pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal, as C.C.No.1137/2012. Now the matter has Crl.M.C.3627/ 2014 2 been settled between the parties and on account of the settlement, there is no possibility of conviction. Further, it is a dispute between two individuals belonging to the same community and on account of the intervention of the community leaders, the matter has been settled between the parties and restored their relationship. Since some of the offences are non-compoundable in nature, they could not file the application before the court below. So the petitioner has no other remedy, except to approach this court, seeking the following relief: “It is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash all further proceedings as against the petitioners in Annexure-A final report, pending as C.C.No.1137/2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-, Attingal”. 3. The 2[nd] respondent appeared through counsel and submitted that, the matter has been settled between the parties, due to the intervention of well-wishers of both parties and the 2[nd] respondent does not want to prosecute the case and he had filed an affidavit stating 3 Crl.M.C.3627/ 2014 these facts. The counsel for the petitioner also submitted that, in view of the settlement, there is no possibility of conviction and so he prayed for allowing the application. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions as directed by this court submitted that, there is no other case against the petitioners, but opposed the application. 5. It is an admitted fact that, on the basis of the statement given by the 2[nd] respondent, crime No.263/2012 of Kadinamkulam police station was registered against the petitioners, alleging offences under Section 341, 294(b), 323 and 506(i) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, Annexure-A final report was filed and it was taken on file as C.C.1137/2012 and now it is pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal. Now the matter has been settled between the parties, due to the intervention of the religious leaders of the community. It is also seen from the cause title that, 2[nd] Crl.M.C.3627/ 2014 4 respondent himself is the president of the jama-ath of that area. On account of the settlement, harmony has been restored between the members of the community. Except offence under Section 294(b) other offences are compoundable in nature. But in view of the dictum laid down by this court, it is very difficult to come to a conclusion that offence under Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code is attracted in this case. In view of the settlement, there is no possibility of conviction, as neither the defacto-complainant nor his witnesses will support the case of the prosecution. Considering the fact that, it is a private dispute between the parties, which resulted in the registration of crime and that has been settled due to the intervention of mediators, well wishers and religious leaders of the community to which both parties belong, this court feels that, such settlement must be honoured in order to promote harmony between the members of the community. Crl.M.C.3627/ 2014 5 6. Further in the decision reported in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012(4) KLT 108 (SC)],** it has been held that: “If a private dispute has been resulted in registration of crime, if no public interest is involved and if such matters are settled due to the intervention of well-wishers of both parties, then court must honour such settlement and even if non-compoundable offences were incorporated, court should invoke the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings to promote the settlement and restore the harmony that has been resulted in the members of the same community”. 7. In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision and also considering the fact that, it is a private dispute resulted in registration of crime and that has been settled between the parties and on account of the settlement, there is no possibility of conviction and allowing the case to proceed will only result in wastage of judicial Crl.M.C.3627/ 2014 6 time, this court feels that, it is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked to quash the proceedings, in order to promote the settlement, and restoration of harmony between the parties and pendency of this case should not be a hurdle for the same. So the petition is allowed and further proceedings in C.C.No.1137/2013 (Crime No.263/2012 of Kadinamkulam police station) pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal, as against the petitioners is quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court, immediately. With the above direction and observation, the criminal miscellaneous case is disposed of. Sd/- ## **K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE** // True Copy // P.A. to Judge ss