Rashid A.K. and Others v. State of Kerala and Others

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A.
Judgment Date: 2022-07-13
Court Decision / Holding: Crl.M.C. 2886 of 2022 allowed. Annexure A1 FIR in Crime No. 130/2022 of Vythri Police Station quashed as against the petitioners.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; FIR quashed (Annexure A1) in Crime No. 130/2022 against the petitioners.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Rashid A.K
Sura alias Vineesh Kumar
Kurla alias Abdul Gafoor
Shajahhan
Ibrahim

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Lenin M
Muhammed RafeeK.K.T
Ameer T.P
Saifulla
Muhammed Akbar T.P

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• M.B. Shyni
• V.R. Anilkumar
• R. Rajesh Kumar

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor P.S. Anishad
• Nima Jacob-PP

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous petition (Crl.M.C. No. 2886 of 2022) in which five accused challenge the continuation of proceedings arising from Crime No. 130/2022 of Vythiri Police Station, registered for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 149 IPC. The petitioners, namely Rashid A.K., Sura alias Vineesh Kumar, Kurla alias Abdul Gafoor, Shajahhan, and Ibrahim, seek to quash the FIR and all further proceedings on grounds that the dispute is essentially private and has been settled conclusively, supported by affidavits sworn by the injured persons (Annexures 2–6). The respondents/injured persons confirm the settlement and express no subsisting grievance, with the State’s Public Prosecutor verified the settlement through the SHO who reports the injured persons’ lack of objection to quashing. The court notes the private nature of the dispute and, given the settlement and bleak chances of a successful prosecution, invokes the principle that Section 482 Cr.P.C powers can be exercised in such circumstances, citing Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another (2012(4) KLT 108). Although one offence under 326 IPC is involved, the record shows the parties were acquainted and the injuries are not conclusively attributable to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and Annexure A1 FIR in Crime No. 130/2022 is quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326 read with 149Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Gian Singh principle (private dispute/settlement justifies quashing under 482 Cr.P.C)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that the dispute between the parties is private and has been settled. Affidavits from the injured persons (Annexures 2–6) attest to the settlement and lack of subsisting grievance. The SHO verified the settlement, and there is no public interest requiring continued criminal proceedings. On this basis, they urge the Court to exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the FIR and all proceedings, to conserve judicial resources and promote ends of justice.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents/injured persons corroborate the settlement, stating they have no subsisting grievance, and the Public Prosecutor confirms the veracity of the settlement via SHO verification. They support quashing the proceedings as the dispute is private and the ongoing proceedings would serve little purpose; consent to quashing aligns with the settled nature of the matter.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another	2012(4) KLT 108	Positive	The court relies on the Gian Singh principle to exercise 482 Cr.P.C to quash proceedings in a private-dispute setting where there is a settlement and no subsisting grievance.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.** **WEDNESDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 2886 OF 2022** **PETITIONER/S:** - **1 RASHID.A.K AGED 29 YEARS** **S/O. ASHRAF A.K., FACTORY DIVISION, PARAKKUNNU, POZHUTHANA POST, POZHUTHANA VILLAGE, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673122** - **2 SURA @ VINEESH KUMAR AGED 33 YEARS** **S/O. SUBRAMANYAN, PARAKKUNNUPADI, POZHUTHANA POST, POZHUTHANA VILLAGE, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673122** - **3 KURLA @ ABDUL GAFOOR AGED 41 YEARS** **M.K., S/O. ALI, MUTHIRAKULAM HOUSE, PARAKKUNNU, POZHUTHANA POST, POZHUTHANA VILLAGE, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673122** - **4 SHAJAHAN** **AGED 33 YEARS** **S/O. RUKHIYA, KOCHUTHOTTAHIL PUTHANVEEDU, ANAPPARA, CHUNDALE POST, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673122** ## **5 IBRAHIM** **AGED 37 YEARS** **S/O. MAMMU, KARIYATTUPOYIL HOUSE, ACHOOR, POZHUTHANA POST, POZHUTHANA VILLAGE, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673122** **BY ADVS.** **M.B.SHYNI** **V.R.ANILKUMAR** - **R.RAJESH KUMAR** Crl.M.C.No. 2886 of 2022 2 ## **RAMEES P.K. ERFANA PARAMBADAN** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031** - **2 LENIN.M AGED 34 YEARS** - **S/O. MOSES, PUTHANPURAKKAL HOUSE, POZHUTHANA POST, POZHUTHANA VILLAGE, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673122** - **3 MUHAMMED RAFEEK.K.T AGED 29 YEARS** - **S/O. HAMZA, KANNATTITHODI HOUSE, PERUMKODA, POZHUTHANA POST, POZHUTHANA VILLAGE, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673122** - **4 AMEER.T.P AGED 33 YEARS** - **S/O.MOIDU, THAZHATHEPEEDIKAKKAL HOUSE, PERUMKODA, POZHUTHANA POST, POZHUTHANA VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673122** - **5 SAIFULLA AGED 39 YEARS** **S/O. YOOSUF, ETTUVEETTIL HOUSE, PERUMKODA POZHUTHANA POST, POZHUTHANA VILLAGE, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673122** - **6 MUHAMMED AKBAR.T.P AGED 30 YEARS** **S/O. MODIFU, THAZHATHEPEEDIKAKKAL HOUSE, PERUMKODA, POZHUTHANA P.O., POZHUTHANA VILLAGE, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673122** Crl.M.C.No. 2886 of 2022 3 **BY ADVS. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR P.S.ANISHAD** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **ADV NIMA JACOB-PP** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Crl.M.C.No. 2886 of 2022 4 **ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J ….................................... Crl.M.C.No. 2886 of 2022** **…....................................................... Dated this the 13[th] day of July, 2022** ## **ORDER** The petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 to 5 in Crime No. 130/2022 of Vythiri Police Station, which is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 326 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case is that, on 16.03.2022 at about 7.00 p.m., the petitioners formed into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object, attacked the respondents 2 to 6 and caused serious injuries to them. Annexure 1 is the FIR and this Crl.M.C is filed for quashing all further proceedings pursuant thereto. 3. I have heard Sri. V.R. Anilkumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt. Nima Jacob, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and Sri. P.S. Anishad the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 6. Crl.M.C.No. 2886 of 2022 5 4. The prayer for quashing the above proceedings is sought for by the petitioners on the ground that, the dispute between the parties has been settled and to substantiate the same, the injured persons have sworn Annexures 2 to 6 affidavits respectively. The aforesaid affidavits indicate that, the matter has been settled and the injured persons have no subsisting grievance against the petitioners herein. They also conveyed that they have no objection in quashing the proceedings against the petitioners herein. The learned counsel for the respondents/injured persons also confirmed the same. The learned Public Prosecutor upon instructions submitted that the veracity of the settlement was verified by the Station House officer concerned and before the SHO also, the injured persons have reiterated that, they do not have any objection in quashing the proceedings as they have no subsisting grievance against the petitioners herein. 5. Going through the materials available on record, it is discernible that, the dispute is basically private in nature and on account of settlement arrived at between the parties, no purpose would be served if the proceedings Crl.M.C.No. 2886 of 2022 6 against the petitioners herein were allowed to continue. In such circumstances, the chances of a successful prosecution are very bleak. Therefore, I am of the view that going by the decision in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [2012(4) KLT 108],** this is a fit case in which the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked. 6. It is true that one of the offences is under Section 326 of the IPC. However, it is discernible from the records that the parties were known to each other, even prior to the incident, and as per the contents of the affidavits sworn by the victims, it is clearly stated that they are not sure as to whether it was the petitioners who attacked them. It is discernible from the records that, the incident occurred during a football match and several persons were there in the place of occurance. Since the victims have specifically expressed their doubts as to the involvement of the petitioners herein, and also conveyed through the affidavits that they do not have any subsisting grievance against the Crl.M.C.No. 2886 of 2022 7 petitioners, I am of view that the powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be invoked. Accordingly, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure A1 FIR in Crime No.130/2022 of Vythri Police Station as against the petitioners are hereby quashed. Sd/- **ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., JUDGE** Dxy Crl.M.C.No. 2886 of 2022 8 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2886/2022** ## **PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE1** **A TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO. 130/2022 OF VYTHRI POLICE STATION, WAYANAD DISTRICT** |**ANNEXURE**|**2**|**AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT**| |---|---|---| |||**DATED 26/04/2022**| |**ANNEXURE**|**3**|**AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT**| |||**DATED 26/04/2022**| |**ANNEXURE**|**4**|**AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT**| |||**DATED 26/04/2022**| |**ANNEXURE**|**5**|**AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT**| |||**DATED 26/04/2022**| |**ANNEXURE**|**6**|**AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT**| |||**DATED 26/04/2022**|