Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeCRL.MC allowed; Annexure AII Final Report quashed.

Rayees and others v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:CRL.MC NO. 7979 OF 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Dr. Kauser Edappagath
Judgment Date
2022-11-29
Court Decision / Holding
CRL.MC is allowed; Annexure AII Final Report in Crime No.723/2020 of Chockli Police Station, Kannur, now CP No.12/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thalassery, stands quashed.
Final Disposition
CRL.MC allowed; Annexure AII Final Report quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Rayees
  • Potteri Faeez
  • Ismail Koovayil
  • Sameer Payadathil
  • Farooq Rayarorth
  • Sajeer O.T.K
  • Jamsheer Mannayot
  • Rasheed Potteri
  • Arafath Puthukkudi
  • Mahammood Theeyathikadavath
  • MidhlaJ Potteri

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
  • The Station House Officer, Chockli Police Station, Kannur District
  • Dasan
  • Sreeja
  • Sajeevan M
  • Sreerag P
  • Aswin
  • DISHNILAL
  • RAVEENDRAN
  • RAVI
  • VINOD
  • ASHIK
  • ASWATH
  • REJULA
  • ROOSHITH
  • ABHAY E.T.K
  • RAHUL
  • VIJEESH

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Satheeshan Alakkadan

Counsels for Respondents

  • • T. V. Neema (Senior Public Prosecutor)
  • • A. Arunkumar

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case (CRL.MC 7979/2022) from the Kerala High Court deals with quashing the final report in Crime No. 723/2020 of Chockli Police Station, Thalassery, which was registered against 11 petitioners (Rayees and others) for offences under IPC Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 308, r/w 149, and the proceedings in CP 12/2021 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thalassery. The challenged report arises from a large group incident, with the de facto complainant (respondent 3) and other injured persons (respondents 4-18) contesting. The petitioners seek to quash the final report on the ground that the entire dispute is personal and has been amicably settled; the de facto complainant has decided not to proceed. Investigations and affidavits corroborate settlement. The petitioners rely on Supreme Court rulings Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others, and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others, which hold that the High Court may invoke Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash non‑compoundable offences where the parties have settled, to serve ends of justice and prevent abuse of process, even if Section 320 Cr.P.C bars compounding. The respondents support quashing, asserting no public interest would be affected. The High Court holds the dispute is purely personal, no public interest is involved, and the offences are not of a type prohibited from compounding. Consequently, the Court allows the Crl.M.C and quashes Annexure AII Final Report in Crime No.723/2020, now CP 12/2021, Thalassery Judicial First Class Magistrate Court.

Provisions of Law Cited

IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 308 r/w 149Cr.P.C. Section 482Cr.P.C. Section 320

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • ends of justice
  • to prevent abuse of process of any Court

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that the dispute is purely personal and has been amicably settled between the parties. They rely on the settled nature of the matter, the de facto complainant’s decision not to proceed, and the affidavits and investigation records showing settlement. Citing Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, and Laxmi Narayan, they argue that High Courts can exercise inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash non‑compoundable offences when a settlement is reached and ends of justice demand it, to prevent abuse of process and to promote ends of justice. They contend continuing prosecution serves no public interest and would be unjust.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents emphasize that the dispute is private and settled, the de facto complainant and injured parties consent to quashing, and the matter involves offences that can be quashed under settled circumstances. They rely on Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, and Laxmi Narayan to support quashing, arguing that there is no public interest harmed by quashing and that resources should not be wasted on a matter that has been amicably resolved.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)PositiveCited as controlling authority that High Courts may quash non‑compoundable offences under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. in cases settled between parties to serve ends of justice.
Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others(2014) 6 SCC 466PositiveSupports exercise of inherent power to quash in settled cases.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others(2019) 5 SCC 688PositiveReiterates ends of justice and avoidance of abuse of process in settled disputes.

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 Rayees and others v. State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

``` CRL.MC NO. 7979 OF 2022 ``` ``` 1 ``` ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH TUESDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 7979 OF 2022 ``` ``` CP 12/2021 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,THALASSERY ``` ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:`** ``` 1RAYEES AGED 40 YEARS S/O BASHEER, MANNAYOT HOUSE, PERINGATHOOR AMSOM, KIDANJI, KANNUR-673316. 2POTTERI FAEEZ AGED 22 YEARS S/O KUNJAMMAD, POTTERI HOUSE, PERINGATHOOR AMSOM, KIDANJI, KANNUR-673316. 3ISMAIL KOOVAYIL AGED 36 YEARS S/O MOOSA, KOOVAYIL HOUSE, PERINGATHOOR AMSOM, KIDANJI , KANNUR-673316. 4SAMEER PAYADATHIL AGED 44 YEARS S/O MAMMAD, KOOVAYIL HOUSE, PERINGATHOOR AMSOM, KIDANJI , KANNUR-673316. 5FAROOQ RAYARORTH AGED 46 YEARS S/O IBRAHIM, RAYAROTH HOUSE, PERINGATHOOR AMSOM, KIDANJI , KANNUR-673316. 6SAJEER O.T.K AGED 24 YEARS, S/O HAMEED, O.T.K HOUSE, PERINGATHOOR AMSOM, KIDANJI , KANNUR-673316. 7JAMSHEER MANNAYOT AGED 28 YEARS S/O MOIDU, MANNAYOT HOUSE, PERINGATHOOR AMSOM, KIDANJI, KANNUR-673316 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 7979 OF 2022 ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` 8RASHEED POTTERI AGED 48 YEARS S/O KUNJABDULLA, POTTERI HOUSE, PERINGATHOOR AMSOM, KIDANJI , KANNUR-673316. 9ARAFATH PUTHUKKUDI AGED 23 YEARS S/O SULAIMAN, PUTHUKUDI HOUSE, PERINGATHOOR AMSOM, KIDANJI , KANNUR-673316, 10MAHAMMOOD THEEYATHIKADAVATH AGED 50 YEARS S/O ABDULLA, THEEYATHIKADAVATH HOUSE, PERINGATHOOR AMSOM, KIDANJI, KANNUR-673316. 11MIDHLAJ POTTERI AGED 25 YEARS S/O RAFEEQ, POTTERI HOUSE, PERINGATHOOR AMSOM, KIDANJI , KANNUR-673316. ``` ``` BY ADV SATHEESHAN ALAKKADAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** - `1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.` - `2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER CHOCKLI POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT-670672,` - `3 DASAN AGED 64 YEARS S/O KELAN SWETHA NIVAS, PERINGATHUR AMSOM, KIDANJI, KANNUR -670675.` - `4 SREEJA AGED 40 YEARS W/O ANILKUMAR, PILAVULLATHIL HOUSE, PERINGATHUR AMSOM, P.O,KIDANJI, KANNUR -670 675.` - `5 SAJEEVAN M AGED 50 YEARS S/O KELU, MANAPATTIL HOUSE, PERINGATHUR AMSOM, P.O,KIDANJI, KANNUR -670 675` ``` CRL.MC NO. 7979 OF 2022 ``` ``` 3 ``` ``` 6SREERAG P AGED 20 YEARS S/O SREEDHARAN, PATHIYAMBATH HOUSE, PERINGATHUR AMSOM, KIDANJI, KANNUR -670675. 7ASWIN AGED 22 YEARS S/O SAJEEVAN, VARAYIL HOUSE, PERINGATHUR AMSOM P.O, KIDANJI, KANNUR -670675. 8DISHNILAL AGED 20 YEARS S/O DAMODARAN, ORANKANDIYIL HOUSE, PERINGATHUR AMSOM, P.O,KIDANJI, KANNUR -670675. 9RAVEENDRAN AGED 44 YEARS S/O KANNAN, MANIKOTH MEETHAL HOUSE, PERINGATHUR AMSOM, P.O KIDANJI, KANNUR -670675 10RAVI AGED 45 YEARS S/O VASU, MEETHALEKOMBATH HOUSE, PERINGATHUR AMSOM, P.O KIDANJI, KANNUR -670675 11VINOD AGED 35 YEARS S/O KELAPPAN, SREELEKSHMI NIVAS, P.O, KIDANJI, KANNUR -670675, 12ASHIK AGED 22 YEARS S/O SAJEEVAN IDATHIL THAZHEKUNIYIL, PERINGATHUR AMSOM, P.O,KIDANJI, KANNUR -670675 13ASWATH AGED 21 YEARS S/O KUMARAN, KUTTIKKATTIL HOUSE, PERINGATHUR AMSOM, P.O,KIDANJI, KANNUR -670675, PIN - 670675 14REJULA AGED 40 YEARS W/O KUMARAN, KUTTIKKATTIL HOUSE, PERINGATHUR AMSOM , P.O,KIDANJI, KANNUR -670675 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 7979 OF 2022 ``` ``` 4 ``` ``` 15ROOSHITH AGED 20 YEARS S/O RAGHAVAN, IROLI THAZHEKUNIYIL HOUSE, PERINGATHUR AMSOM, KIDANJI, KANNUR -670675, PIN - 670675 16ABHAY E.T.K AGED 20 YEARS S/O SAJEEVAN, EDATHIL THAZHE UNIYIL, P.O,KIDANJI, KANNUR -673316, 17RAHUL AGED 31 YEARS S/O PADMANABHAN MEETHALE KOMBATH HOUSE, PERINGATHUR AMSOM, P.O,KIDANJI, KANNUR -670675, PIN - 670675 18VIJEESH AGED 35 YEARS S/O BALAN, PARMBATH HOUSE, PERINGATHUR AMSOM,KIDANJI, KANNUR -670 675 ``` ``` R1 & R2 BYSMT.T.V.NEEMA-SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR R3 TO R18 BY ADV A.ARUNKUMAR ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 7979 OF 2022 ``` ``` 5 ``` ## O R D E R This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure AII Final Report in Crime No.723/2020 of Chockli Police Station now pending as C.P.No.12/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thalassery on the ground of settlement between the parties. 2. The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 11. The 3[rd] respondent is the de facto complainant and the respondent Nos.4 to 18 are the injured. 3. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 308 r/w 149 of IPC. 4. The respondent Nos.3 to 18 entered appearance through counsel. The affidavits sworn in by them are also produced. 5. I have heard Sri.Satheeshan Alakkadan, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.A.Arunkumar, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 to 18 and Smt.T.V.Neema, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. ``` CRL.MC NO. 7979 OF 2022 ``` ``` 6 ``` 6. The averments in the petition as well as the affidavits sworn in by the respondent Nos.3 to 18 would show that the entire dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the de facto complainant has decided not to proceed with the criminal proceedings further. The learned Prosecutor, on instruction, submits that the matter was enquired into through the investigating officer and a statement of the de facto complainant was also recorded wherein he reported that the matter was amicably settled. 7. The Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)], Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others [(2019) 5 SCC 688] has held that the High Court by invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C can quash criminal proceedings in relation to non compoundable offence where the parties have settled the matter between themselves notwithstanding the bar under S.320 of Cr.P.C. if it is warranted in the given facts and circumstances of the case or to ensure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court. ``` CRL.MC NO. 7979 OF 2022 ``` ``` 7 ``` 8. The dispute in the above case is purely personal in nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure AII Final Report. The offences in question do not fall within the category of offences prohibited for compounding in terms of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in Gian Singh (supra), Narinder Singh (supra) and Laxmi Narayan (supra). For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that no purpose will be served in proceeding with the matter any further. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure AII Final Report in Crime No.723/2020 of Chockli Police Station now pending as C.P.No.12/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thalassery hereby stands quashed. Sd/- ## DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE ab ``` CRL.MC NO. 7979 OF 2022 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7979/2022`** |`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`|| |---|---| |`Annexure A1`|`. CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME`| ||`NO.723 OF 2020 OF CHOKLI POLICE STATION,`| ||`KANNUR`| |`Annexure AII`|`CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN`| ||`CRIME NO.723 OF 2020 OF CHOKLI POLICE`| ||`STATION, KANNUR`| |`Annexure AIII`|`ORIGINAL COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY`| ||`RESPONDENT NO: 3`| |`Annexure AIV`|`ORIGINAL COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY`| ||`RESPONDENT NO: 4`| |`Annexure AV`|`ORIGINAL COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY`| ||`RESPONDENT NO: 5`| |`Annexure AVI`|`ORIGINAL COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY`| ||`RESPONDENT NO: 6`| |`Annexure AVII`|`ORIGINAL COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY`| ||`RESPONDENT NO: 7`| |`Annexure AVIII`|`ORIGINAL COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY`| ||`RESPONDENT NO: 8`| |`Annexure AIX`|`ORIGINAL COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY`| ||`RESPONDENT NO: 9`| |`Annexure AX`|`ORIGINAL COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY`| ||`RESPONDENT NO: 10`| |`Annexure AXI`|`ORIGINAL COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY`| ||`RESPONDENT NO: 11`| |`Annexure AXII`|`ORIGINAL COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY`| ||`RESPONDENT NO: 12`| |`Annexure AXIII`|`ORIGINAL COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY`| ||`RESPONDENT NO: 13`| |`Annexure AXIV`|`ORIGINAL COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY`| ||`RESPONDENT NO: 14`| |`Annexure AXV`|`ORIGINAL COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY`| ||`RESPONDENT NO: 15`| |`Annexure AXVI`|`ORIGINAL COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY`| ||`RESPONDENT NO: 16`| |`Annexure AXVII`|`ORIGINAL COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY`| ||`RESPONDENT NO: 17`| |`Annexure AXVIII`|`ORIGINAL COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY`| ||`RESPONDENT NO: 18`|