High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-11-07Petition allowed; quashed the criminal proceedi...

Roopesh A.G. et al. v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C. No. 7068 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
Judgment Date: 2016-11-07
Court Decision / Holding: Petition allowed. The High Court, invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, quashes the proceedings in CC 766 of 2015 and all related actions arising therefrom, including the final report.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; quashed the criminal proceedings in CC 766/2015 and related proceedings.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Roopesh A.G.
Ranjith
Rajaneesh
Sumesh
Shibu
B. Suraj
Surjith
Subhash
Surjith (S/O Lakshmanan)

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Shihab Palayi

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri A. Arunkumar

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
• Sri Pradeesh Mathew R

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court Criminal Misc. Case (Crl.M.C. 7068 of 2016) challenging the order in CC 766/2015 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Hosdurg, Kasaragod. The nine petitioners were charged with offenses under IPC Sections 143, 147, 148, 427, 452, and 153A r/w 149 for forming an unlawful assembly on 11.10.2011, trespassing into the Muslim Youth League office and committing mischief to promote enmity among groups. The petition argues that the dispute is largely personal and that an amicable settlement has been reached with de facto complainant Shihab Palayi; therefore, under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court should quash the criminal proceedings to maintain peace and harmony and to prevent abuse of process. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations, noting the extraordinary nature of the remedy and that quashing on settlement should be used cautiously. The court relies on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab to recognize that amicable settlements can justify quashing when ends of justice are served and no abuse occurs. After evaluating the circumstances, the judge concludes that quashing is warranted and grants the petition, quashing CC 766/2015 along with the final report. The dispute is treated as essentially personal with no ongoing risk to public peace.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the CrPCSections 143, 147, 148, 427, 452, 153A r/w 149 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ends of justice
Abuse of process of law
Amicable settlement between victim and wrongdoer as a basis to quash proceedings

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petition contends that the dispute is of a personal nature and that the parties have reached an amicable settlement with the de facto complainant. It is urged that the offences charged do not reflect grave or heinous crime, that continued prosecution would be a waste of time given meager chances of conviction, and that quashing under Section 482 CrPC would serve ends of justice and prevent abuse of process. The argument hinges on the settled position that amicable settlements may justify ending criminal proceedings where public peace is not endangered and where it would be fair and just to do so.

Contentions of Respondents

The State, through the Public Prosecutor, raises reservations about invoking extraordinary powers to quash in a case arising from communal/political tensions. While acknowledging the settlement, it argues that the court must exercise caution, balancing ends of justice with public interest and the possibility of abuse of process. It is contended that the offences involve group mischief and may have broader societal implications, requiring careful scrutiny of whether quashing would undermine the integrity of the process.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	(2012) 10 SCC 303	Positive	Cited for the principle that High Courts may quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases where amicable settlement exists between victim and wrongdoer to secure ends of justice and prevent abuse of process.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	(2014) 6 SCC 466	Positive	Cited for reaffirming the ends-of-justice and abuse-of-process considerations guiding quashing where settlements exist and prosecution would be unwarranted.

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 Roopesh A.G. et al. 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.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/16TH KARTHIKA, 1938 Crl.MC.No. 7068 of 2016 () --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 766/2015 of J.M.F.C.-II,HOSDRUG DATED CRIME NO. 1190/2011 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION , KASARGOD PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED: --------------------- 1. ROOPESH A.G. AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.K.R.RAMESH, AJANUR KADAPPURAM , AJANUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, 2. RANJITH, AGED 26 YEARS S/O.A.S.RAVI, AJANUR KADAPPURAM , AJANUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. 3. RAJANEESH, AGD 24 YEARS S/O.A.S.RAVI, AJANUR KADAPPURAM , AJANUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. 4. SUMESH AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.RAVEENDRAN, INDIRA NIVAS, AJANUR KADAPPURAM , AJANUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. 5. SHIBU AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.MULLA, ATHINHAL KADAPPURAM, AJANUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. 6. 7. - B.SURAJ, AGED 27 YEARS S/O.RAJAN, PARU HOUSE, AJANUR KADAPPURAM , AJANUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. SURJITH, AGED 28 YEARS S/O.KATTADI KUMARAN, SUJITHALAYAM, KATTADI, AJANUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. 8. SUBHASH, AGED 32 YEARS S/O.KANNAN, PUTHIYODAN HOUSE, KATTADI, AJANUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. 9. SURJITH, AGED 24 YEARS S/O LAKSHMANAN, KOLAVAYAL, KATTADI, AJANUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK BY ADV. SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR CONTD.. :2: Crl.MC.No. 7068 of 2016 () --------------------------- RESPONDENT(S)/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031. 2. SHIHAB PALAYI AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.K.M.MUHAMMED, SALAMATH HOSUE, AJANUR KADAPPURAM, AJANUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK 671 315. R2 BY ADV. SRI.PRADEESH MATHEW R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. T.R.RENJITH THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CONTD.. **==> picture [23 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** Crl.MC.No. 7068 of 2016 () --------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- ANNEXUREAA1 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO.1190 OF 2011 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD ANNEXURE AII A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.1190 OF 2011 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD ANNEXURE AIII A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ENDORSING THE FACTUM OF SETTLEMENT RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL ----------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE SKS ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J ----------------------------------------** ## **Crl.M.C. No. 7068 of 2016** ## **----------------------------------------Dated this the 7[th] day of November, 2016** ## **O R D E R** - 1.This petition is filed under Section 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 9 in C.C. No. 766 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Hosdurg. They stand indicted for having committed offences punishable under Sections 143, - 147, 148, 427, 452, 153 (A) r/w Section 149 of the IPC. - 3.The prosecution allegation is that on 11.10.2011, the petitioners in furtherance of their common object formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and after trespassing into the office of the Muslim Youth League committed mischief with intent to promote enmity with different Crl.M.C. No. 7068 of 2016 2 groups . - 4.Heard the submissions advanced. 5.The learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. Attention of this Court is invited to the affidavit filed by him 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 invocation of powers under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is not warranted. However, it is submitted that no other cases are reported against the petitioners. Crl.M.C. No. 7068 of 2016 3 ## 7.I have considered the submissions . ## 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. 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: Crl.M.C. No. 7068 of 2016 4 ## _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:_ _(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. Crl.M.C. No. 7068 of 2016 5 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-AI final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.C. No. 766 of 2015 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Hosdurg are quashed. **Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE** SKS //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE