High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-10-04Quashed; proceedings against petitioners in CC ...

Salim M. alias Saleem Moola and others v. State of Kerala and Public Prosecutor

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No.5735 of 2016

Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Hon. Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date: 2016-10-04
Court Decision / Holding: Petition allowed; quashed the proceedings against the petitioners in CC 177/2015; Annexure A1 final report and all proceedings thereto are quashed.
Final Disposition: Quashed; proceedings against petitioners in CC 177/2015 are quashed under Section 482 CrPC.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Salim M. alias Saleem Moola
Aboo Baker Siddique
Navas K.T.
Muhammed Haneefa C.M.
Muhammed Kbeer M

Respondents

Rahmathulla K.A
State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. S. Jiji
• (Adv.)

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. K.S. Santhi (Adv. for Respondent 1)
• Sri. Amjad Ali (Public Prosecutor)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482 CrPC filed by five accused challenging the validity of a pending trial in C.C. No.177/2015 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod, for offences including unlawful assembly, wrongful restraint and various IPC sections. The petitioners (Salim M., Aboboaker Siddique, Navas K.T., Muhammed Haneefa, and Muhammed Kbeer M) contend that the disputes between them and the de facto complainant Rahmathulla K.A. have been amicably settled, supported by Annexure A2 (an affidavit by the 1st respondent). They urge that the Court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings in light of the settlement, following established Supreme Court guidelines. The 1st respondent acknowledges the settlement, and the Public Prosecutor for the State is present. The court cites Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) and later Narinder Singh and Rajesh Kamath J. to endorse that quashing is permissible where disputes are private and have been resolved, and that the proceedings’ continuation would be oppressive. The judge notes the offences are not grave and the case has an overwhelmingly private/civil flavour. Accordingly, senses of benevolence toward settlement lead to quashing the final report and proceedings in CC 177/2015, allowing the petition. The order underscores the balance between private settlement and public interest in cases of a non-societal nature.”

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 294(b) & 506(ii) read with Section 149 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Inherent power of High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings beyond the scope of Section 320 CrPC; can rely on private settlements.
Quashing permissible in cases with private disputes or civil flavour upon settlement/compromise between offender and victim.
Not applicable to crimes against society; settlement must be genuine and not contrary to public interest.
Guidelines and principles from: Gian Singh v. State of Punjab; Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab; Rajesh Kamath J. and Others v. Mohana Kurup and Others.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants submit that the disputes with the de facto complainant have been amicably resolved, supported by Annexure A2 affidavit. Relying on Gian Singh and subsequent Supreme Court guidance (Narinder Singh, Rajesh Kamath J.), they urge that Sec 482 CrPC empowers the High Court to quash such proceedings where the offence has private or civil flavour and settlement has taken place; continuing the prosecution would cause oppression and prejudice. Since the offence is not grave and the parties have settled, quashing would be just and in the interest of justice.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents acknowledge the settlement (Annexure A2) and support the petitioners’ approach, emphasizing that the dispute has been resolved and the prosecution should not be persisted with where private disputes are resolved amicably; the public interest in avoiding harassment and oppression in private disputes is stressed, aligning with the private-flavour nature of the matter.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another	(2012) 10 SCC 303	Positive	Cited to support that high courts can exercise 482 CrPC power for quashing based on settlements in private disputes; not extend to crimes against society.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	(2014) 6 SCC 466	Positive	Guidelines on quashing based on settlement; used to bolster the current quashing in light of amicable settlement.
Rajesh Kamath J. and Others v. Mohana Kurup and Others	AIR 2016 SC 2452	Positive	Reinforces the stance that settlements influence quashing under 482 CrPC; supports the court’s reliance on private settlement.

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 Salim M. alias Saleem Moola and others v. State of Kerala and Public Prosecutor 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** **TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/12TH ASWINA, 1938** ## **Crl.MC.No. 5735 of 2016 ()** ## **---------------------------** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 177/2015 of C.J.M.,KASARAGOD CRIME NO. 140/2015 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION , KASARGOD** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:** **------------------------------------** **1. SALIM M. @ SALEEM MOOLA B.A, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O MUHAMMEDKUNHI, PADUPPIL HOUSE, CHEMMANAD VILLAGE & POST, KASARAGOD.** **2. ABOOBAKER SIDDIQUE @ SIDDI, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O MUHAMMEDKUNHI, VADAKKUMPADATH HOUSE, CHEMMANAD VILLAGE & POST, KASARAGOD.** **3. NAVAS K.T. @ BETTU,** **AGED 35 YEARS, S/O ABDUL RAHMAN, CHIRACKAL HOUSE, CHEMMANAD VILLAGE & POST, KASARAGOD.** **4. MUHAMMED HANEEFA C.M. @ ANWAR, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O ABDULLA C.M. MUNDAMKULAM HOUSE, CHEMMANAD VILLAGE & POST, KASRAGOD.** **5. MUHAMMED KBEER M, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O IBRAHIM, VADAKKUMPADATH HOUSE, CHAMMANAD VILLAGE & POST, KASRAGOD.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.S.JIJI** **RESPONDENTS/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE:** **--------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. RAHMATHULLA K.A AGED 29 YEARS, S/O HANEEFA, ALICHERY HOUSE, KOMBANADUKKAM, CHEMNAD, KASARAGOD 671 317.** **2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **R1 BY ADV. SMT.K.S.SANTHI R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.MC.No. 5735 of 2016 () ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES --------------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CR. 140/2015 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2 ` AFFIDAVIT DATED 18-08-2016 SWORN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES ------------------------------------------** ## **NIL** **/TRUE COPY/** **VPS P.S. TO JUDGE** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.5735 of 2016 ----------------------------------------Dated this the 4[th] day of October, 2016** ## **O R D E R** - 1.This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Code') has been preferred by the petitioners herein for quashing the proceedings pending against them as C.C.No.177 of 2015 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasaragod. In the said case, they stand indicted for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 294(b) & 506(ii) read with Section 149 of the IPC. - 2.The prosecution allegation is that on 19.2.2015 at 8.15 p.m., the petitioners formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and have wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and inflicted injuries. - 3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the 1[st] respondent as well as the learned Public Crl.M.C.5735/2016 2 Prosecutor. - 4.It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent that the disputes have been amicably resolved. Reference is also made to Annexure-A2 affidavit sworn to by him wherein it is asserted that the dispute does not subsist any more. - 5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, this Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings. - 6.In **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another** [2012 (10)SCC 303], the Apex Court has crystalised the position in respect of the powers vested in the High Court under S.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to quash criminal proceedings. It was held that the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is not limited to quashing proceedings within the ambit and scope of Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Crl.M.C.5735/2016 3 Code. The three - Judge Bench in the above case, clearly expounded, that quashing of criminal proceedings under S.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, could also be based on settlements between private parties, and could also on a compromise between the offender and the victim. Only that, the above power did not extend to crimes against the society. It is also relevant to mention, that the jurisdiction vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for quashing criminal proceedings, was held to be exercisable in criminal cases having an overwhelming and predominatingly civil flavour, particularly offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership, or such like transactions. Or even offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc. or family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal. In all such cases, the parties should have resolved their entire dispute by themselves, mutually. Further, guidelines were Crl.M.C.5735/2016 4 issued by the Apex Court in **Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab** [2014 (6) SCC 466] and recently in **Rajesh Kamath J. and Others v. Mohana Kurup and Others** [AIR 2016 SC 2452]. 7.I have considered the rival submissions and I have gone through the materials on record. 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. More over, when the party respondents have settled the matter, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and the continuation of the criminal case against the petitioners would be a futile exercise. It would also put the petitioners and the party respondents to great oppression and prejudice. Though the 4[th] accused is said to be involved in another case as well, taking note of the allegations in the instant case, I am of the view that there is no reason to deny the prayer Crl.M.C.5735/2016 5 sought for. 8.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. AnnexureA1 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.C.No.177 of 2015 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasaragod are quashed. **Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE** vps