Noufal v. State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Ramakrishnan
Judgment Date: 2014-03-27
Court Decision / Holding: The application is allowed and further proceedings in C.C.No.1501/12 (Crime No.417/2010) pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nadapuram, are quashed.
Final Disposition: Quashed the proceedings; Crl.M.C. allowed; proceedings in C.C.No.1501/12 quashed and order communicated to the concerned court.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Noufal

Respondents

Sameer
State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Zubair Pulikool

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. P.A. Aneesha
• Public Prosecutor Smt. Sareena George

Case Synopsis & Summary

Noufal, the sole accused in Crime No.417/2010 registered at Nadapuram Police Station, challenges the continuation of criminal proceedings in C.C.No.1501/2012 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Nadapuram under Section 482 CrPC. The FIR alleged offences under IPC sections 341 and 324. The petition contends that a settlement between the accused and the first respondent has restored relations and that continuing the prosecution would serve no purpose, even though the offences are non-compoundable. The accused could not file an application for compounding given the non-compoundable nature; hence he sought quashing of the entire proceedings. The first respondent appeared through counsel and stated the matter has been settled, with an affidavit filed indicating his inability to prosecute. The Public Prosecutor opposed the petition but indicated there are no other cases against the petitioner. The court noted the parties' settlement and relied on the Supreme Court's Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, which holds that in cases with private or civil flavour where disputes are settled, High Courts may quash if continuation would be oppressive or unjust and ends of justice demand it. On these grounds, the High Court allowed the 482 CrPC petition and quashed the proceedings in C.C.No.1501/12. The order directs immediate communication to the concerned court.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)Sections 341 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 4 KLT 108 (SC) – ends-of-justice doctrine permitting quashing in settlement of private disputes
In cases with private or civil flavour where disputes are settled, High Courts may quash if continuation would be oppressive or unjust and ends of justice require it

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner submitted that the case arises from a private dispute which has since been settled, restoring harmony between the parties. Since the offence is non-compoundable, there is no alternative to approach the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings in the interest of justice and to give effect to the settlement. Continuing the criminal process would be oppressive and would defeat the ends of justice given the restored relationship and lack of public interest in pursuing the case.

Contentions of Respondents

The first respondent appeared through counsel and stated that the matter has been settled with the affidavit indicating no desire to prosecute. The Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, noting the absence of any other pending cases against the petitioner, but argued that the court must ensure that quashing does not undermine public interest or violate statutory provisions.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)	Positive	Cited as authority supporting quashing of criminal proceedings in private settlement scenarios where continuation would cause oppression or injustice, promoting ends of justice.

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 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/6TH CHAITHRA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1761 of 2014 (B)** **--------------------------------------[AGAINST C.C. NO.1501/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, NADAPURAM]** **...............** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:** **------------------------------------------** **NOUFAL, S/O.MAMAD, AGED 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT VALIYA PONNAMKOTT HOUSE, P.O.PARAKKADAVU, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL.** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **-----------------------** ## **1. SAMEER,** **S/O.ISMAIL, AGED 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOMBIPONNANKOTTU HOUSE, PARAKKADAVU P.O., VATAKARA TALUK.** **2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **R1 BY ADV. SMT.P.A.ANEESHA, R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SAREENA GEORGE.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Prv.** ## **CRL.M.C. NO.1761/2014-B:** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:** **ANNEXURE-I: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.R AND POLICE CHARGE IN CRIME NO.1501/2012 OF NADAPURAM POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE-II: SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF 1ST RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE.** **Prv.** ## **K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.** ................................................. Crl.M.C.No.1761 of 2014 .................................................. Dated this the 27[th] day of March, 2014. ## **O R D E R** This petition is filed by the sole accused in C.C.No.1501/2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nadapuram on the basis of a settlement under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. It is alleged in the petition that on the basis of the statement given by the first respondent Annexure-I First Information Report was registered as Crime No.417/2010 of Nadapuram police station against the petitioner alleging the offences under Sections 341 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code . After investigation final report has been filed and it was taken on file as C.C.No.1501/2012 and pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nadapuram. The matter has been settled between the parties and now the relationship has been restored. The defacto complainant does not want to prosecute the petitioner in view of the settlement. No purpose will be served by proceeding with the case in view of the settlement. Since the offence alleged is non compoundable in nature, they Crl.M.C.No.1761 of 2014 2 cannot file an application before the court below for compounding. So the petitioner has no other remedy except to approach this Court seeking the following relief: Therefore it is humbly prayed that the Crl.M.C may be allowed and Annexure-I F.I.R & police charge and all further proceedings in C.C.No.1501/2012 on the file of JFCM Court, Nadapuram in Crime No.417/2010 of Nadapuram police may kindly be quashed against the petitioner. 3. The first respondent appeared through counsel and submitted that matter has been settled between the parties and he does not want to proceed with the case and he had filed an affidavit to that effect. 4. The counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in view of the settlement no purpose will be served in proceeding with the case. 5. The Public Prosecutor, on instructions as directed by this Court, submitted that there is no other case against the petitioner except this case, but opposed the application. 6. It is an admitted fact that on the basis of a statement given by the first respondent, Annexure-1 First Information Crl.M.C.No.1761 of 2014 3 Report was registered against the petitioner and after final report was filed, it is now pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nadapuram as C.C.No.1501/2012. The matter has been settled between the parties. The first respondent appeared through counsel and submitted that the matter has been settled and he does not want to prosecute the petitioner and he had filed Annxure II affidavit to that effect. It is seen from the records that the parties are neighbours and due to intervention of mediators, the matter has been settled and their relationship has been restored. 7. 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 4 Crl.M.C.No.1761 of 2014 may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because 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.” 8. In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision and also considering the fact that the matter has been settled between the parties and in view of the settlement, possibility of conviction is remote even if the trial of the case is allowed to proceed with and the relationship has been restored between Crl.M.C.No.1761 of 2014 5 parties on account of the settlement, this Court feels that this is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be invoked to quash the proceedings to promote the settlement and the harmony that has been restored between the parties. 9. So, the application is allowed and further proceedings in C.C.No.1501/12 (Crime No.417/2010 of Nadapuram police station) pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nadapuram as against the petitioner is quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately. ## **Sd/-** **K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.** cl /true copy/ P.S to Judge Crl.M.C.No.1761 of 2014 6