High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-05-30Petition allowed; criminal proceedings quashed ...

null

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No. 3004 of 2016 (C.C.No.172/2015)

Neutral Citation:/null

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date: 2016-05-30
Court Decision / Holding: this petition is allowed and all further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.172 of 2015 of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Hosdurg shall stand quashed.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; criminal proceedings quashed against petitioners 1–9 in C.C.No.172/2015

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

A.K. Sidheque
Ibrahim O.T
Faisal N
Shabeer T.P
Semeer A.G
Noorudeen P.P.C
Rashid O.T
Uvais @ Muhammed Uvais
Rashid P.P.C

Respondents

State of Kerala, represented by Public Prosecutor
Jabir V.S
Shefeeque P.A

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri A. Arunkumar

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor SMT. Sareena George (for R1)
• Sri P.K. Subhash (for R2 & R3)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous petition under section 482 CrPC, decided by a Single Judge, Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V, on 30 May 2016. The petition, Crl.M.C. No. 3004 of 2016, seeks to quash proceedings in Crime No. 491 of 2013 of Chittarikkal Police Station, Kasaragod, involving accused 1–9, after amicable settlement between the parties. The connected case pending before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Hosdurg is C.C. No. 172 of 2015, arising from offences under sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 326 read with 149 IPC. Respondents include the State and the de facto complainants (2nd and 3rd respondents). Annexures AII and AIII, affidavits by respondents 2 and 3, establish settlement and endorse it. The Public Prosecutor states that accused 1 and 9 are also involved in Crime No. 492/2013 for an offence under section 325 IPC, but the other accused have no notable antecedents. Citing Gian Singh, Narinder Singh and Yogendra Yadav, the court reiterates that the inherent power under section 482 CrPC is wide and must be exercised to secure ends of justice and prevent abuse of process, particularly where the dispute is private and settled. The court finds the compromise voluntary, genuine, and in the interest of community peace, and quashes the proceedings against accused 1–9 in C.C. No. 172/2015. The petition is allowed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326 read with Section 149 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Inherent power of High Court under Section 482 CrPC is wide plenitude with no statutory limitation; it must be exercised to secure ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.
Compromise between victim and offender can justify quashing in appropriate cases, especially when the offence is private or personal in nature and not of heinous nature.
Heinous/serious offences (e.g., murder, rape, dacoity) typically cannot be quashed despite settlement.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012 (10) SCC 303) and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014 (6) SCC 466) and Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another (2014 (9) SCC 653) guide the exercise of inherent power for quashing upon settlement.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that the case has been amicably settled between the parties during the pendency of the criminal proceedings. Annexures AII and AIII, affidavits sworn by respondents 2 and 3, affirm the settlement, and respondents 2 and 3 have no objection to quashing. Citing the settled position in Gian Singh, Narinder Singh and Yogendra Yadav, they argue that the High Court can exercise its inherent power to quash if the settlement ensures ends of justice and the proceedings are not capable of meaningful continuation. The offences involve both common assault and injuries; the compromise is voluntary and in the broader interest of peace.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents acknowledge the amicable settlement and support quashing, noting that continuing litigation would be oppressive. The Public Prosecutor states that petitioners 1 and 9 are also implicated in Crime No. 492/2013 (offence under Sec. 325 IPC), but the essential complaint is resolved by the settlement. The respondents rely on the principle that quashing is permissible in private disputes to avoid abuse of process, provided it does not affect the public interest or society at large.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 (10) SCC 303	Positive	Apex Court held that in appropriate cases, the High Court can quash criminal proceedings upon amicable settlement to secure ends of justice.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	2014 (6) SCC 466	Positive	Reiterates the principle that compromise can justify quashing, subject to ends of justice and absence of pressure.
Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another	2014 (9) SCC 653	Positive	Affirms the framework for quashing based on compromise and ends of justice.

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 null 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** ## **MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2016/9TH JYAISHTA, 1938** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3004 of 2016** ## **-------------------------------------C.C.NO.172/2015 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, HOSDRUG CRIME NO. 491/2013 OF CHITTARIKAL POLICE STATION , KASARAGOD** ## **--------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :** **-----------------------------------------** **1. A.K. SIDHEQUE, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.ABBAS, ANJILLATH KUPPURAYIL HOUSE, ARIYAGGALLU, BEEMANADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD.** **2. IBRAHIM.O.T, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.YUSAF, OTTATHAIYYIL HOUSE, BEEMANADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD.** **3. FAISAL.N,** - **AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.BEEFATHIMA, NANGARATH HOUSE, POOZHIKKAYAM, BEEMANADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD.** **4. SHABEER T.P, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.JAMEELA, THOLAPPURATH, KAKKADAVU, BEEMANADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD.** **5. SEMEER A.G, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.KUNHABDULLA, ANJILLATH HOUSE, ARINJIRA, BEEMANADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD.** **6. NOORUDEEN P.P.C, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.SEYD, PAZHAYAPATTILLATH HOUSE, POOZHIKKAYAM, KAKKADAVU, BEEMANADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD.** **7. RASHID O.T, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.USMAN, OTTATHEYYIL HOUSE, POOZHIKKAYAM, KAKKADAVU, BEEMANADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD.** **8. UVAIS @ MUHAMMED UVAIS, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY, ELAMBADI HOUSE, PERUMBATTA, BEEMANADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD.** **..2/-** **..2..** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3004 of 2016** ## **--------------------------------------** ## **9. RASHID P.P.C, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.SEYD, PAZHAYAPATTILLATH HOUSE, POOZHIKKAYAM, KAKKADAVU, BEEMANADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT :** **----------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.** **2. JABIR V.S, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.SYED MUHAMMED, RESIDING AT VATTAKUNIYIL HOUSE, ATHUTTY, PETTIKUNDU.P.O, CHEEMENI VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK- 671 315.** **3. SHEFEEQUE P.A, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL KAREEM, RESIDING AT PATHAKUTHIKKAL HOUSE, CHANADUKKAM, PATTIKKUNDU.P.O., BEEMANADY VILLAGE, VELLARIKKUNDU TALUK- 671 315.** **R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SAREENA GEORGE R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SUBHASH** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Msd. **Crl.MC.No. 3004 of 2016** ## **-------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :** **AI A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.491 OF 2013 OF CHITTARIKKAL POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD. AII A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ENDORSING THE FACTUM OF SETTLEMENT. AIII A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ENDORSING THE FACTUM OF SETTLEMENT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :** ## **NIL** ## **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A.TO JUDGE** Msd. ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 3004 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 30[th] May, 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **ORDER** 1. The petitioners herein are the accused No's 1 to 9 in Crime No. 491 of 2013 of Chittarikkal Police Station which was registered at the instance of the second respondent involving offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The petitioners have come up with this petition invoking powers of this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash pending criminal proceedings on the ground that the matter has been amicably resolved between the parties. 3. After investigation final report was laid before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Hosdurg and the case is now pending as C.C.No. 172 of 2015. The second Crl.M.C. No.3004 of 2016 -2- respondent herein is the _de facto_ complainant and the third respondent is the injured in the above matter. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the second and third respondents herein. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that during the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the matter was settled between the parties. Reference is made to Annexures AII and AIII affidavits sworn to by respondents 2 and 3 to buttress his contention that the matter has been settled. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 endorses the submission of the learned counsel and asserted in terms of above affidavits. It is further submitted that respondents 2 and 3 have no objection in allowing the petition and quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners herein. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submits that the petitioners 1 and 9 are involved in Crime Crl.M.C. No.3004 of 2016 -3- No.492 of 2013 of Chittarikkal Police Station in respect of an incident which occurred on the same day. The aforementioned crime has been registered for the offence punishable under Section 325 of the IPC as well. In respect of other accused, no previous antecedents are reported. 7. It is thus borne out from the submissions made at the Bar that the parties have amicably settled their disputes on their own free will and without any kind of pressure, influence or coercion. The compromise, it is felt, is voluntarily and genuine and can be acted upon. The law with regard to the settlement of criminal disputes on the strength of an amicable resolution of the disputes between the parties is no more res integra. 8. **In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012 (10) SCC 303),** Apex Court has laid down that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. This view was Crl.M.C. No.3004 of 2016 -4- reiterated in **Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014 (6) SCC 466) and Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another (2014 (9) SCC 653).** 9. It was held that the inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. It was held that certain categories of cases involving heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute as those offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. But those cases where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and those in which the parties have resolved their entire dispute could fittingly be quashed by this Court taking into account the compromise between the offender and victim. In such cases Crl.M.C. No.3004 of 2016 -5- the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused and the _de facto_ complainant to great oppression and prejudice. 10. After having anxiously considered the submissions it is felt that it would be unfair and contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding. It would only tantamount to abuse of process of law to subject the parties to the ordeal of a protracted criminal proceeding despite the settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer. Settlement will augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony. 11. I take note of the fact that in respect of petitioners 1 and 9, though C.C.No.1064 of 2014 is pending before the learned Magistrate for the offence under Section 325 of the IPC, wound certificate reveals that only minor injuries have been sustained. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that this petition Crl.M.C. No.3004 of 2016 -6- can be allowed. In the result, this petition is allowed and all further proceedings as against the petitioners in C.C.No.172 of 2015 of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Hosdurg shall stand quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE** kp/-31.5.16