Puthalathu Moosa V.P. v. State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date: 2016-12-01
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is allowed; the final report and all proceedings in S.C. No.682 of 2012 against the petitioners are quashed.
Final Disposition: Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Puthalathu Moosa V.P.
NadukandiYil Yousuf
Isahaq
Nazar V.V.

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Kulavallur Police Station through Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala-682 031
P. Muhammad Shereef S/o Mammi Haji
Musthafa S/o Muhammed

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri K. Siju
• Smt. S. Seetha

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Shanavas Nalakath Randupurayil
• Public Prosecutor Sri M.R. Dhanil

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C. No. 7733 of 2016) decided on 1 December 2016, by Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. The petition, under Section 482 CrPC, seeks to quash an ongoing criminal case (S.C. No. 682 of 2012) arising from Tamil? (Kannur district) police station records. Accused Nos. 1–4 (Puthalathu Moosa V.P., NadukandiYil Yousuf, Isahaq, Nazar V.V.) are charged under sections 341, 324, 326, and 308 read with 34 IPC for allegedly restraining and assaulting the private respondents in 2011. The respondents contend the dispute is personal; the matter should be settled without halting the prosecution. The prosecution has voiced reservations about quashing, noting the offense under section 308 IPC is serious. The court cites Supreme Court judgments Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, which permit quashing where there is an amicable settlement between victim and wrongdoer and ends of justice require ending the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process. The judge concludes that the offenses are not grave, the dispute is personal, and the settlement would promote peace; thus exercising its extraordinary power, the court quashes the final report and proceedings against the petitioners.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 CrPCSection 341 IPCSection 324 IPCSection 326 IPCSection 308 read with Section 34 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ends of justice
Abuse of process of law
Inherent powers of High Court under Section 482 CrPC
Settlement/compromise between victim and wrongdoer can justify quashing

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that the settlement among the parties is amicable, the dispute is personal in nature, and continuation of the prosecution would be unjust and an abuse of the process of law. Quashing would promote peace and ensure ends of justice, given that no public interest or broader societal impact is involved. They rely on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab to justify exercising inherent powers to terminate proceedings where a settlement exists.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that Section 308 IPC involves a serious offense; quashing on the basis of compromise may undermine the integrity of criminal adjudication and could set a dangerous precedent. Public interest and the proper administration of justice require that the case proceed to determine responsibility unless a legitimate ends-of-justice criterion is clearly met.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 (10) SCC 303	Positive	Apex Court held that High Courts may quash criminal proceedings if there is an amicable settlement between victim and accused and it would serve ends of justice.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	2014 (6) SCC 466	Positive	Reiterated that ends of justice and avoidance of abuse of process guide quashing in settlement cases.

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 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 7733 of 2016 () --------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER IN SC 682/2012 of ASST. SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY CRIME NO. 661/2011 OF KULAVALLUR POLICE STATION , KANNUR** **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:** **---------------------** ## **1. PUTHALATHU MOOSA V.P.** **S/O.AHAMMED, AGED 61, PUTHALATHU HOUSE, THRIPPANGOTTUR AMSOM, CENTRE POYLUR, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **2. NADUKANDIYIL YOUSUF** **S/O.IBRAHIM, AGED 32 YEARS, NADUKANDIYIL HOUSE, THRIPPANGOTTUR AMSOM, CENTRE POYLUR, KANNUR DISTRICT.** ## **3. ISAHAQ** **S/O.ISMAIL, AGED 23 YEARS, MEETHALA ELIKUNNUMEL HOUSE, THRIPPANGOTTUR AMSOM, CENTRE POYLUR KANNUR DISTRICT.** **4. NAZAR V.V. S/O.MOIDU, AGED 32 YEARS, VEETTIPOYIL HOUSE, THRIPPANGOTTUR AMSOM, CENTRE POYLUR, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.K.SIJU** **SMT.S.SEETHA** ## **RESPONDENTS/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE:** **-------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KULLAVALLUR POLICE STATION THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA-682 031.** **2. P.MUHAMMAD SHEREEF S/O.MAMMI HAJI, AGED 26 YEARS, POTTANTAVIDA HOUSE, THRIPPANGOTTOOR AMSOM, CENTRE POYILOOR, POYILOOR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT 670 606.** **3. MUSTHAFA AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, PAREMMAL HOUSE, CENTRE POYILLOOR P.O., POYILLOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT 670 606.** **R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.SHANAVAS NALAKATH RANDUPURAYIL BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.R.DHANIL** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **Crl.MC.No. 7733 of 2016 () ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES ----------------------ANNEXURE I THE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.391/2013 OF KULAVALLUR POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE II THE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.391/2013 OF KULAVALLUR POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE III THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 04/08/2015 REGARDING THE COMPROMISE. ANNEXURE IV THE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 10/10/2016. RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES --------------------------** ## **NIL** **/TRUE COPY/** ## **VPS** **PS TO JUDGE** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.7733 of 2016** **----------------------------------------Dated this the 1st day of December, 2016** ## **O R D E R** - 1.This petition is filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) with a prayer to invoke the extraordinary inherent powers and to quash the pending criminal proceedings. - 2.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1 to 4 in S.C. No.682 of 2012 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Thalassery. In the aforesaid case, they stand indicted under sections 341, 324, 326, 308 read with 34 of the IPC. 3. The prosecution allegation is that on 22.12.2011 at 11.10 p.m., the petitioners in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained the respondents 2 and 3 and thereafter assaulted them causing injuries. 4. Heard the submissions advanced. Crl.M.C.7733/2016 2 - 5.The learned counsel appearing for the party respondents submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. Attention of this Court is invited to the affidavits filed by them to buttress his submission. It is urged that the dispute is purely personal in nature and would not affect public peace or tranquility. Summing up it is prayed that the criminal proceedings be terminated to promote peace and harmony. - 6.The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions has expressed his reservations in the matter of quashing the proceedings on the basis of settlement. It is submitted that the petitioners are involved in a crime registered under section 308 of the IPC registered in the year 2012 and no other crimes are reported. It is submitted that the invocation of powers under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is not warranted. - 7.I have considered the submissions . - 8.In **Gian singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303** Crl.M.C.7733/2016 3 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. It was observed as follows : _“61. 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 criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the 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 the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”_ 9.The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court ## in **Narinder singh v. State of Punjab. (2014) 6 SCC** **466,** the pertinent observations which are as under: _XXXXXXXXXXXX_ _29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:_ Crl.M.C.7733/2016 4 _(i) ends of justice, or_ _(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives._ _xxxxxxx_ _xxxxxxx_ 10.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 .It is felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and secure the ends of justice. Even otherwise, persisting with the prosecution would be nothing but a waste of time as the prospects of conviction would be bleak. 11.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-2 Crl.M.C.7733/2016 5 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners in S.C. No.682 of 2012 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Thalassery are quashed. **Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE** vps