Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed

Saidali and Others v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:CRL.M.C No.2832 of 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Ziyad Rahman A.A.
Judgment Date
2022-06-13
Court Decision / Holding
The petition is allowed. Annexure-A2 final report in Crime No.1816/2019 of Attingal Police Station and all further proceedings in CC 488/2020 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-1, Attingal as against the petitioners are hereby quashed.
Final Disposition
Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Saidali
  • Jeovan Francis
  • Amal
  • Vipin Vijay
  • Muhammed Hashim
  • Al Rashid
  • Muhammed Hijas
  • Shinas
  • Muhammed Hafiz
  • Nowfal

Respondents

  • STATE OF KERALA represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
  • Steffin
  • Arjun SR
  • Sulfikkar
  • Anandan
  • Arjun
  • Gokul
  • Sibin
  • Aldrin Edwin
  • Sreehari

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Adv SRavan M.S.

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Adv AKHIL RA B.
  • • Adv. M.P. Prasanth (Sr. PP)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Misc. Case (CRL.M.C No.2832 of 2022) heard by single Judge Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. of the Kerala High Court. The petitioners are ten accusedpersons in Crime No.1816/2019 of Attingal Police Station, now pending as CC 488/2020 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal. The offences alleged include IPC Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 341, 323 and 324 arising from an incident on 01.12.2019 at about 10:30 PM, where the petitioners allegedly assaulted respondents 2 to 10. The petition seeks to quash further proceedings in CC 488/2020, on the ground that the dispute is private in nature and has been settled. Annexures A3 to A11 are affidavits sworn by the injured parties asserting that they have no subsisting grievance and no objection to quashing. The SHO reportedly verified the settlement. The court notes that the dispute is private and that continued proceedings would serve little purpose given the settlement and poor prospects of a successful prosecution. Citing Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another (2012(4) KLT 108), the Court holds that in such circumstances, it may exercise its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings. Consequently, the petition is allowed, quashing the final report and all further proceedings against petitioners in CC 488/2020.

Provisions of Law Cited

IPC Section 143IPC Section 147IPC Section 148IPC Section 149IPC Section 341IPC Section 323IPC Section 324

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Inherent power of High Courts under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings in the interest of justice, especially in private disputes with no subsisting grievance.
  • Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another, 2012(4) KLT 108 – relied upon to justify quashing where settlement exists.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petition asserts that the dispute is private, the injuries are the result of a private quarrel, and the matter has been settled with affidavits (Annexures A3–A11) swearing by the injured that they have no subsisting grievance and no objection to quashing. The SHO’s verification corroborates the settlement. Given the private nature of the dispute and the lack of public interest, continuing criminal proceedings would not serve any purpose, and invoking the High Court’s power under Section 482 CrPC to quash would be appropriate in the interests of justice, as guided by Gian Singh (2012).

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents acknowledge the settlement and support quashing, as evidenced by affidavits and the Public Prosecutor’s confirmation that the settlement’s veracity was verified by the SHO. The injuries and offences are acknowledged, but the lack of subsisting grievance and the private nature of the dispute reduce the likelihood of a successful prosecution. The State and private respondents thus do not oppose quashing and rely on the Court’s discretion under 482 CrPC to prevent harassment and to promote settlement in private disputes.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another2012(4) KLT 108PositiveThe court relies on Gian Singh to exercise its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings where there is a settled private dispute and no subsisting grievance.

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 Saidali 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.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.** **MONDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 23RD JYAISHTA, 1944** ## **CRL.MC NO. 2832 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 488/2020 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,ATTINGAL** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED PERSONS:** - **1 SAIDALI** **AGED 20 YEARS** **S/O MUJEEB RAHMAN, RESIDING AT SAIDALI MANZIL, CHAVARCODE, PARIPPALLY P.O, PIN - 691574** - **2 JEEVAN FRANCIS AGED 20 YEARS** **S/O FRANCIS, PALLIVILAVEEDU, VENNICODE P.O, PIN - 695318** ## **3 AMAL** **AGED 23 YEARS** **S/O ANILKUMAR GL, RESIDING AT THEKKEVILA VEEDU, CHEMPAKAMANGALAM, KORANI P.O, EDAKKODE, PIN - 695104** - **4 VIPIN VIJAY AGED 21 YEARS** **S/O VIJAYAKUMAR, RESIDING AT VISHNU NIVAS, MUTTAPALAM P.O, VARKALA, PIN - 695145** ## **5 MUHAMMED HASHIM AGED 22 YEARS** 2 Crl.M.C No.2832 of 2022 ## **S/O FAROOK S, RESIDING AT PLAVILAVEEDU, MUDAPURAM P.O, CHIRAYINKEEZHU, PIN - 695304** - **6 AL RASHID AGED 21 YEARS** - **S/O NAZER, RESIDING AT RAIZA MANZIL, KULAMANKUZHI, KALLARA P.O, PIN - 695608** - **7 MUHAMMED HIJAS AGED 21 YEARS** - **S/O HASSAN M, RESIDING AT HIJAS MANZIL, THUMBODU, MADAVOOR P.O, PALLICKAL, PIN - 695602** - **8 SHINAS AGED 20 YEARS** - **S/O SHUHAIB M, RESIDING AT SS MANZIL, KATTIYADU, KUDAVOOR P.O, POTHENCODE, PIN - 695313** - **9 MUHAMMED HAFIZ AGED 21 YEARS** - **S/O NAZIMUDHEEN, RESIDING AT LIZEENA MANZIL, PAKALKURI P.O, PALLIKKAL,, PIN - 695604** - **10 NOWFAL** - **AGED 22 YEARS S/O NOUSHAD R.S, NOUFI MANZIL, VARIKKUMUKKU, VELLOOR, MURUKKUMPUZHA, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695302** - **BY ADV SRAVAN M.S.** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE/DE FACTO COMPLAINANTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031** 3 Crl.M.C No.2832 of 2022 ## **2 STEFFIN** **AGED 22 YEARS** **S/O SELVAN, RESIDING AT KUNNUMPURAM ANCHUTHENGU, KADAKKAVOOR, TRIVANDRUM,, PIN - 695309** - **3 ARJUN SR AGED 22 YEARS** - **S/O SAJI, RESIDING AT KALLINGAL KONATHU VEDU, AVANAVANCHERY P.O, ATTINGAL,, PIN - 695103** - **4 SULFIKKAR AGED 21 YEARS** **S/O SALIM , RESIDING AT KANNIVILAKAM, VAKKAM P.O, VAKKAM, TRIVANDRUM,, PIN – 695308** - **5 ANANDAN AGED 21 YEARS** **S/O SUNDRESAN, RESIDING AT KVM HOUSE, ALAMCODE P.O, MEVARACKAL, ATTIGAL, TVM,, PIN - 695102** - **6 ARJUN** - **AGED 21 YEARS** **S/O ANU, MANGALA BHAVAN, PARANDAKUDI PAZHAYA KUNNIMEL, NAGAROOR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695601** - **7 GOKUL** - **AGED 22 YEARS** **S/O PATHMAKUMAR, RESIDING AT KRISHNA VIHAR, MAVINMOODU, KALLAMBALAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695605** ## **8 SIBIN** - **AGED 21 YEARS** **S/O JERALD RESIDING AT LEJIN HOUSE, KOCHUMETHAN** 4 Crl.M.C No.2832 of 2022 ## **KADAVU, ANCHUTHENGU P.O,, PIN - 695309** - **9 ALDRIN EDWIN** **AGED 21 YEARS S/O EDWIN, RESIDING AT FERNANDERS BHAVAN, THETTIMOOLA, KADAKKAVOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695309** **10 SREEHARI AGED 21 YEARS S/O SURESH, RESIDING AT SURAJA BHAVAN, THETTICHIRA, KURAKKAD P.O, KIZHUVALAM, PIN - 695104** **BY ADV AKHIL RAJ B.** **ADV.M.P.PRASANTH-SR,PP** THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: 5 Crl.M.C No.2832 of 2022 ## **O R D E R** The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.1816/2019 of Attingal Police Station which is now pending as C.C 488/2020 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 341, 323 and 324 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case is that, on 01.12.2019, 10.30 p.m, the petitioners have assaulted the respondents 2 to 10 and caused injuries to them. Annexure-A1 is the FIR and AnnexureA2 is the final report submitted by the Police. This Crl.MC is filed for quashing all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A2. 3. Heard Sri.Sravan M.S, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. M.P.Prasanth, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and Sri. Akhil Raj B, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 6 Crl.M.C No.2832 of 2022 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 filed Annexures-A3 to A11 affidavits respectively, which were sworn by them. The aforesaid affidavits indicate that, the matter has been settled and the injured persons have no subsisting grievance against the petitioners herein. They have also conveyed that they have no objection in quashing the proceedings against the petitioners herein. The learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 2 to 10/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 7 Crl.M.C No.2832 of 2022 account of settlement arrived at between the parties, no purpose would be served if the proceedings 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. Accordingly, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-A2 final report in Crime No.1816/2019 of Attingal Police Station and all further proceedings in C.C.488/2020 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-1, Attingal as against the petitioners are hereby quashed. Sd/- **ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A JUDGE** rpk 8 Crl.M.C No.2832 of 2022 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2832/2022** ## **PETITIONER ANNEXURES** |**Annexure A1**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION**| |---|---| ||**REPORT IN THE CRIME NO.1816/2019 OF**| ||**ATTINGAL POLICE STATION,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT DATED**| ||**03.12.2019**| |**Annexure A2**|**TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT ON 23.02.2020**| ||**AND ATTESTED A COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET**| ||**IN CRIME NO.1816/2019 ON THE FILE OF**| ||**JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-1,**| ||**ATTINGAL**| |**Annexure A3**|**TRUE COPY AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND**| ||**RESPONDENT DATED 27.04.2022**| |**Annexure A4**|**TRUE COPY AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD**| ||**RESPONDENT DATED 27.04.2022**| |**Annexure A5**|**TRUE COPY AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 4TH**| ||**RESPONDENT DATED 27.04.2022**| |**Annexure A6**|**TRUE COPY AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 5TH**| ||**RESPONDENT DATED 27.04.2022**| |**Annexure A7**|**TRUE COPY AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 6TH**| ||**RESPONDENT DATED 27.04.2022**| |**Annexure A8**|**TRUE COPY AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 7TH**| ||**RESPONDENT DATED 27.04.2022**| |**Annexure A9**|**TRUE COPY AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 8TH**| ||**RESPONDENT DATED 27.04.2022**| |**Annexure A10**|**TRUE COPY AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 9TH**| 9 Crl.M.C No.2832 of 2022 **RESPONDENT DATED 27.04.2022 Annexure A11 TRUE COPY AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 10TH RESPONDENT DATED 27.04.2022**