Riyas P.M. and others v. State of Kerala and others

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date: 2016-05-30
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is allowed; all further proceedings in Crime No. 594 of 2016 of Chavakkad Police Station are quashed.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; FIR and all further proceedings quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Riyas P.M.
Muhammed Niyas P.M.
Faisal P.M.
Mohammed Sadiq

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Sub Inspector of Police, Chavakkad Police Station, Chavakkad, Thrissur District
Asharaf s/o Abutti

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. C. U. Sangeeth

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor, Sri Rajesh Vijayan
• Sri Nagaraj Narayanan (for R3)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C. No. 2643 of 2016) decided by Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V of the Kerala High Court. The petitioners, four accused in Crime No. 594 of 2016 of Chavakkad Police Station, sought to quash the FIR and all further proceedings invoking Section 482 CrPC, on the basis of an amicable settlement with the complainant. The prosecution alleges that on 12 March 2016, at about 11 a.m., the petitioners assaulted the de facto complainant due to prior enmity, triggering offences under IPC sections 323, 324, 308 and 506 read with section 34. During the pendency, the parties represented that they had resolved their disputes and would live in harmony, and the petitioners moved the court to quash the FIR and subsequent proceedings. The Public Prosecutor stated the petitioners have no criminal antecedents and did not oppose action on Annexure II, indicating a favorable settlement. Relying on Supreme Court precedents—Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, and Yogendra Yadav v. State of Jharkhand—the court held that inherent powers under 482 CrPC are wide and can be exercised to ensure ends of justice and prevent abuse of process where the dispute is private and resolved amicably. The court found the compromise voluntary and genuine and concluded continuing the prosecution would be unfair. Consequently, the petition was allowed and all further proceedings were quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

IPC 323IPC 324IPC 308IPC 506 read with IPC 34CrPC 482

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

ends of justice
prevention of abuse of process of any Court
res integra
inherent power of High Court under Section 482 CrPC

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that the disputes between the parties have been amicably resolved during the pendency of the criminal proceedings, and the compromise should be allowed under the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR and proceedings, in the interest of peace and justice.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents acknowledged the settlement and conveyed that the de facto complainant’s grievance has been addressed; the State did not oppose action on the compromise Annexure II, indicating no ongoing public interest in continuing the case given the private nature of the dispute.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	(2012) 10 SCC 303	Positive	Judicial principle permitting quashing of criminal proceedings where amicable settlement exists, especially in cases involving private disputes.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	(2014) 6 SCC 466	Positive	Reiterates the scope of inherent powers under 482 CrPC in light of settlements between victim and offender.
Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another	(2014) 9 SCC 653	Positive	Affirms that compromise and private settlement can justify quashing to prevent oppression and prejudice from protracted proceedings.

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. 2643 of 2016 ()** **--------------------------CRIME NO. 594/2016 OF CHAVAKKAD POLICE STATION , THRISSUR** **.......** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4:** **----------------------------------------------------** **1. RIYAS P.M., AGED 27, S/O.MOHAMMED ALI, PALLATH MANAKALAYIL HOUSE, P.O. KUNDALIYUR, CHETTUVA.** **2. MUHAMMED NIYAS P.M.,** - **AGED 29, S/O. MOHAMMED ALI, PALLATH MANAKALAYIL HOUSE, P.O. KUNDALIYUR, CHETTUVA.** **3. FAISAL P.M., AGED 31, S/O. MOHAMMED ALI, PANIKKAVEETIL, KALOOPARAMBIL, NOW RESIDING AT PALLATH MANAKALAYIL HOUSE, P.O. KUNDALIYUR, CHETTUVA.** **4. MOHAMMED SADIQ, AGED 49, S/O. KUNJAMMADUKUTTY, P.O. KUNDALIYUR, CHETTUVA.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.C.U.SANGEETH.** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:** **-------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHAVAKKAD POLICE STATION, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 126.** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2643 of 2016** **3. ASHARAF, S/O. ABUTTY, AGED 48, THOTTUNGAL HOUSE, VATTEKKAD, CHAVAKKAD,THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 128.** **R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN. R3 BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** rs. ## **Crl.MC.No. 2643 of 2016** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-** **ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE FIR. ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 25.04.2016.** **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** rs. ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 2643 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 30[th] May, 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **ORDER** 1. The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.594 of 2016 of Chavakkad Police Station , registered at the instance of the third respondent for offences under Sections 323, 324, 308 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The Prosecution allegation is that the 3[rd] respondent was assaulted with weapons by the petitioners on 12.03.2016 at 11 a.m owing to previous enmity. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the third respondent herein. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that during the pendency of the criminal proceeding the parties have decided to resolve the disputes Crl.M.C. No.2643 of 2016 -2- amicably and live in harmony. Having compromised the matter, the petitioners/ accused have preferred the present petition, to quash the impugned FIR and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code. 5. The 3[rd ] respondent/ _de facto_ complainant has sworn to Annexure II affidavit stating that the entire disputes between the parties have been settled . It is also submitted that his grievance has been redressed and he does not entertain any complaint or grudge against the petitioners. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submits that the petitioners are not persons with any criminal antecedents and also the State has no objection in acting on Annexure II as it would promote peace and harmony. 7. It is thus borne out from the submissions made at the Bar that the parties have amicably settled their disputes Crl.M.C. No.2643 of 2016 -3- by 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 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 Crl.M.C. No.2643 of 2016 -4- 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 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 Crl.M.C. No.2643 of 2016 -5- 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. Having regard to the facts and circumstances , I am of the view that the petition is only to be allowed . In the result, this petition is allowed and all further proceedings as against the petitioners in Crime No.594 of 2016 of Chavakkad Police Station shall stand quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE** kp/-30.5.16