Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed; proceedings against the accused were t...

Noushad Hussain v. Faisal and The Sub Inspector of Police, Kayamkulam

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC No. 4094 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date
2016-08-04
Court Decision / Holding
The petition is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner, the sole accused in Crime No. 845 of 2013, Kayamkulam Police Station, are quashed.
Final Disposition
Quashed; proceedings against the accused were terminated in light of the amicable settlement and the court’s reliance on CrPC 482 and related jurisprudence.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Noushad Hussain

Respondents

  • Faisal (de facto complainant)
  • The Sub Inspector of Police, Kayamkulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • K.R. Sunil

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Smt. Reena Gopinath
  • • Smt. Pushpalatha M.K. (Public Prosecutor)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case arises from Crime No. 845 of 2013 registered at Kayamkulam Police Station. The sole accused, Noushad Hussain, seeks to quash the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC on the basis of an amicable out-of-court settlement between the parties. The de facto complainant, Faisal (a minor aged 16), is represented through his guardian; the guardian and the minor have sworn affidavits expressing no objection to quashing the investigation and prosecution. The first information report alleges offences under IPC sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 324 (voluntary causing hurt by dangerous weapon), and 341 (wrongful restraint). The court notes that the case involves a personal dispute with no impact on public peace and tranquility, and that a continued prosecution would be neither necessary nor productive given the likelihood of conviction being remote. The judgment relies on the evolving jurisprudence around the inherent powers of CrPC Section 482 to quash criminal proceedings in light of an amicable settlement, particularly Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and related cases ( Narinder Singh et al. and Yogendra Yadav et al.), to uphold settlement as a legitimate ground to terminate proceedings in non-heinous cases. The court ultimately holds that quashing the proceedings would serve peace and harmony, and accordingly allows the petition and quashes all further proceedings against the accused.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)Sections 323, 324 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)Section 320 of the CrPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings in light of amicable settlements.
  • Guidelines laid down in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012 (4) KLT 108) regarding use of CrPC 482 in settlement scenarios.
  • Reliance on Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and Another (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Yogendra Yadav and others v State of Jharkhand (2014 (9) SCC 653) as part of the consolidated guidance for quashing in settlement contexts.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner submits that Section 482 CrPC empowers the High Court to quash criminal proceedings where there is an amicable settlement between the parties, the offence is not heinous, the guardians have no objection, and continuation of the case would be futile given the remote likelihood of conviction. The courts should promote peace and harmony and avoid oppressive proceedings, especially where the victim is a minor and the dispute is personal in nature.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents, including the guardian of the minor and the public prosecutor, did not raise serious objections to quashing in light of the settlement and the non-heinous nature of the offence; the submissions emphasize the need to consider the settlement and public interest, while acknowledging the protective measures for a minor.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab2012 (4) KLT 108PositiveCited as the leading guideline for invoking CrPC 482 to quash proceedings in a settlement context; relied upon by the court to support quashing.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and Another2014 6 SCC 466PositiveMentioned as part of the supporting matrix guiding quashing in settlement scenarios.
Yogendra Yadav and others v State of Jharkhand2014 (9) SCC 653PositiveCited within the same doctrinal framework as supportive authority for quashing in light of settlement.

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 Noushad Hussain v. Faisal and The Sub Inspector of Police, Kayamkulam 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** **THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/13TH SRAVANA, 1938** ## **Crl.MC.No. 4094 of 2016 ()** **--------------------------CRIME NO. 845/2013 OF KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT --------------------** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **--------------------------------------** **NOUSHAD HUSSAIN, S/O.ABDUL HAKKIM, MULLASSERY THARAYIL, ERUVA MURI, KAYAMKULAM.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.K.R.SUNIL** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** **-------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. FAISAL, S/O.KABEER, AGED 16, CHARUMMOOTTITHARAYIL, ERIVA MURI, PATHIYOOR VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPILLY TALUK, REPRESENTED BY HIS GUARDIAN (UNCLE) ANZARI, S/O.ABDUL JABBAR, AGED 40 YEARS, DO-DO.** **2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION, KAYAMKULAM, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.** **R1 BY ADV. SMT.REENA GOPINATH R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. PUSHPALATHA.M.K** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** ## **Crl.MC.No. 4094 of 2016 ()** **----------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES: ---------------------------------------------** **ANNEX A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.R. DATED 24.04.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAYAMKULAM.** **ANNEX A2 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 25.05.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAYAMKULAM. ANNEX A3 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL** **------------------------------------------------** **/TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE** **sts** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V., J.** ------------------------------------------ ## **Crl.M.C. No.4094 of 2016** -----------------------------------------Dated this the 4[th] day of August, 2016 ## **O R D E R** ## **~~~~~~~~** - 1.The petitioner herein is the sole accused in Crime No.845 of 2013 of Kayamkulam Police Station. He is charged for having committed offence punishable under Sections 323, - 324 and 341 of the IPC. 1[st] respondent is the _de facto_ complainant. - 2.The instant petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure banking on the ratio of the Judgment rendered by the Apex Court in **Gian Singh v.** - **State of Punjab** ( 2012 (4) KLT 108) and a series of other cases which include **Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and Another (2014) 6 SCC 466)** and **Yogendra Yadav and others V State of Jharkhand** (2014 (9) SCC 653 ) with a prayer to quash the above Crl.M.C. No.4094 of 2016 **-2-** proceeding. - 3.The sole ground is that the Apex Court in the above judgments have delineated the circumstances and the cases in which inherent powers under Section 482 can be invoked _de hors_ section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for recognizing out of court settlement for the purpose of quashing criminal proceedings. It is prayed that powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be invoked to quash the criminal proceedings . - 4.It is submitted that the parties have reached an out of court settlement and there is no acrimony between them at present. All the disputes have been amicably resolved and they desire to live in peace and harmony. The 1[st] respondent, who is represented by his guardian, has sworn to an affidavit wherein he asserts that he has no objection in terminating the proceedings. - 5.The gist of the prosecution allegation is that on Crl.M.C. No.4094 of 2016 **-3-** 15.04.2013 at about 8 p.m., the petitioner had attacked the _de facto_ complainant, who is a minor, aged 16 years, by slapping on his face and kicking on his abdomen causing swelling and pain. On the basis of the statement furnished by the injured minor, the aforesaid crime was registered. - 6.It is submitted that the matter has been amicably resolved and an affidavit is seen filed by one Ansari, who is the maternal uncle of the _de facto_ complainant. It is mentioned in the affidavit that the mother of the _de facto_ complainant is no more and his father is a drunkard and that the maternal uncle is now taking care of the minor child. - 7.A report was called for from the investigating officer. As per the report, it is revealed that the mother - Haseena of the minor victim - Faisal had committed suicide in the year 2004. Thereafter, his father - Kabeer abandoned the Crl.M.C. No.4094 of 2016 **-4-** victim and left him. The minor is under the guardianship of Sri.Ansari, who is the maternal uncle. The victim is living with the family of his uncle at present. It is also reported that the parties have entered into a settlement and the 1[st] respondent does not wish to prosecute the petitioner any more. - 8.I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made across the bar and I have also gone through the materials on record. - 9.The uncle of the minor victim, has sworn to an affidavit wherein it is asserted that the victim as well as the guardian has no objection in allowing the petition and in quashing the proceedings as all the disputes between the parties have been resolved and the parties are living in peace and harmony. No serious objection is also raised by the learned public prosecutor taking note of the fact that the offence is not heinous in nature . Crl.M.C. No.4094 of 2016 **-5-** 10.It appears to me that the offence is entirely personal in nature and do not affect public peace or tranquility. It is also felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace. In a case such as the instant one, even if the prosecution is allowed to continue, it would not serve any purpose as the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. It can only result in putting the _de facto_ complainant and the accused to unwanted oppression and prejudice. Settlement will augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony. - 11.I am of the view that this Court is well justified in quashing the impugned proceedings as the instant case falls within the matrix of guidelines issued by the Apex Court in **Gian Singh** (Supra) and the other cases referred to above. Crl.M.C. No.4094 of 2016 **-6-** In the result, this petition is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner, who is the sole accused in Crime No.845 of 2013 of Kayamkulam Police Station are quashed. sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V. JUDGE** Ps/5/8/16