Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeFavourable to the petitioner; FIR and proceedin...

Sameer v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:CRL.M.C NO. 1585 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C.S. Dias
Judgment Date
2024-03-15
Court Decision / Holding
The Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. Annexure-A1 (FIR), Annexure-A2 (Final Report), and all further proceedings in CC No. 386/2019 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Koyilandy, are quashed against the petitioner. The order closes with the invocation of the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC in view of the amicable settlement and the non-serious nature of the offences.
Final Disposition
Favourable to the petitioner; FIR and proceedings quashed (quashed).

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • SAMEER

Respondents

  • STATE OF KERALA
  • SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOYILANDY POLICE STATION, KOYILANDY
  • MUHAMMAD JASIM
  • FATHIMA
  • KUNHIMAYAN

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • M.P.SHAMEEM AHAMED
  • • DANIYA RASHEED PALLIYALIL

Counsels for Respondents

  • • SMT. NEEMA JACOB
  • • Sri. HASHICK

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (CRL.M.C. No. 1585 of 2024) before the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam, initiated by the sole accused, Sameer, seeking to quash FIR No. 74/2019 registered at Koyilandy Police Station and the consequent final report and all further proceedings in CC No. 386/2019 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Koyilandy. The FIR relates to offences under sections 448 (house trespass), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 324 (causing hurt with a dangerous weapon), 294(b) (obscene words), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner contends that the dispute with respondents 3 to 5 was amicably settled, with respondents 3 to 5 filing affidavits (A3–A5) stating they have no subsisting grievance and no objection to quashing the proceedings. The Investigating Officer corroborated the settlement’s genuineness. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged quashing to secure ends of justice in a non-serious dispute with no public interest at stake. Respondents’ counsel and the State acknowledged the settlement. The High Court relied on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Prabhatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, recognizing that amicable settlements in non-serious offences can warrant quashing. After consideration, the court held this to be a fit case to exercise its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC and quash the FIR, final report, and CC proceedings, thereby allowing the Criminal M.C."

Provisions of Law Cited

CrPC Section 482IPC Sections 448, 323, 324, 294(b), 506

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Ends of justice
  • Inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC
  • Amicable settlement as a basis for quashing in non-serious offences

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the dispute between the petitioner and respondents 3–5 has been amicably settled, with affidavits A3–A5 sworn by respondents 3–5 stating that they have no subsisting grievance against the petitioner and have no objection to quashing further proceedings. It was submitted that the Investigating Officer has found the settlement genuine and bona fide. The prayer is to exercise the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to secure ends of justice, noting that the offences are not serious, there is no public interest involved, and the chances of conviction are remote; continuing proceedings would be a waste of judicial time and would disrupt social harmony.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents 3–5, through their counsel, contended that the dispute with the petitioner has been settled and they have no subsisting grievance against the petitioner, and they have no objection to quashing the proceedings. The State/Prosecutor supported the settlement, and the Investigating Officer’s report corroborated the genuineness and bona fides of the affidavits. The parties’ material and the lack of public interest in the case formed the basis for considering quashing under the High Court’s inherent powers.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab2012 (10) SCC 303PositiveCited to support quashing in cases where amicable settlements between parties are accompanied by non-serious offences, aligning with ends of justice.
Prabatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others v. State of Gujarat and another(2017) 9 SCC 641PositiveReiterates that amicable settlements and lack of public interest can justify quashing criminal proceedings.

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 Sameer v. State of Kerala and Others 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 C.S.DIAS ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 15[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1945 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 1585 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.74/2019 OF KOYILANDY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.386 OF 2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,KOYILANDY PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ``` ``` SAMEER AGED 46 YEARS PUTHUKKUDI, MOOZHIKKUMEETHAL, NADERI POST, QUILANDY, KOZHIKODE RURAL, KERALA, INDIA, PIN - 673620 ``` ``` BY ADVS. M.P.SHAMEEM AHAMED DANIYA RASHEED PALLIYALIL ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** |**`1`**|**`STATE OF KERALA`**| |---|---| ||**`REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF`**| ||**`KERALA, PIN - 682031`**| |**`2`**|**`SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE`**| ||**`KOYILANDY POLICE STATION , MINI CIVIL STATION ,`**| ||**`KOYILANDY, PIN - 673305`**| |**`3`**|**`MUHAMMAD JASIM`**| ||**`AGED 33 YEARS`**| ||**`S/O KUNHIMAYAN, THIRUMANGALATH HOUSE,`**| ||**`MOOZHIKKUMEETHAL, NADERI POST, KOYILANDY,`**| ||**`QUILANDY, KOZHIKODE RURAL, KERALA, INDIA, PIN -`**| ||**`673620`**| |**`4`**|**`FATHIMA`**| ||**`AGED 52 YEARS`**| ||**`W/O KUNHIMAYAN, THIRUMANGALATH HOUSE,`**| ||**`MOOZHIKKUMEETHAL, NADERI POST, KOYILANDY,`**| ||**`QUILANDY, KOZHIKODE RURAL, KERALA, INDIA, PIN -`**| ||**`673620`**| |**`5`**|**`KUNHIMAYAN`**| Crl.M.C.No.1585 of 2024 _-:2:-_ ``` AGED 68 YEARS S/O MAMMIKUTTY, THIRUMANGALATH HOUSE, MOOZHIKKUMEETHAL, NADERI POST, KOYILANDY, QUILANDY, KOZHIKODE RURAL, KERALA, INDIA, PIN – 673620 ``` ``` R1 AND R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. NEEMA JACOB ``` ``` R3 TO R5 BY SRI. HASHICK P.P ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` Crl.M.C.No.1585 of 2024 _-:3:-_ Dated this the 15[th] day of March, 2024 ## **O R D E R** The petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, to quash Annexure-A1 First Information Report[FIR], Annexure-A2 Final report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.386/2019 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Koyilandy. 2. The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.74/2019 of the Koyilandy Police Station, Kozhikode, which is registered against him, at the instance of the third respondent, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 448, 323, 324, 294(b) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code,1860. 3. The crux of the prosecution is that: on 25.01.2019, the accused got infuriated against the third respondent for not paying the full rent. Crl.M.C.No.1585 of 2024 _-:4:-_ Accordingly, the petitioner assaulted the third respondent using a metal rod. The petitioner also kicked the 4th respondent, the mother of the third respondent and caused injuries to her. He also abused the 5[th] respondent, the father of the 3[rd] respondent. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences. 4. Heard; Sri. M.P. Shameem Ahamed, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.Neema Jacob, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Sri.P.P. Hashick the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 5. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the subject matter in dispute between the petitioner and the respondents 3 to 5 has been amicably settled and the said respondents have voluntarily executed Annexures-A3 to A5 affidavits, no as stating that they have subsisting grievance against the petitioner and have no objection in all Crl.M.C.No.1585 of 2024 _-:5:-_ further proceedings in the above crime being quashed. Hence, the petition may be allowed. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the Investigating Officer has ascertained and reported that the subject matter in dispute between the petitioner and the respondent 3 to 5 has been amicably settled and the respondent 3 to 5 have voluntarily executed Annexures-A3 to A5 affidavits. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 5 have also submitted that the dispute between the parties has been settled and the said respondents have no subsisting grievance as against the petitioner. The said submission is recorded. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab** [2012 (10) SCC 303] and **Prabatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another** [(2017) 9 Crl.M.C.No.1585 of 2024 _-:6:-_ SCC 641] has held that in the facts and circumstances of the case and to secure the ends of justice, where the High Court is satisfied that an amicable settlement has been arrived at between the parties and the offence is not serious in nature involving mental depravity, criminal proceedings may be quashed. 9. On a consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials on record, especially after going through Annexures-A3 to A5 affidavits sworn in by the respondents 3 to 5, which has been found to be genuine and bona fide by the Investigating Officer, I am convinced and satisfied that this is a fit case to exercise the inherent power of this Court, particularly since the alleged offences are not serious in nature, no public interest is involved, the chances of conviction is remote, the continuation of the proceeding would only be wastage of judicial time and the settlement would augur harmony in society. Crl.M.C.No.1585 of 2024 _-:7:-_ Hence, I am inclined to allow the petition. In the result, the Crl.M.C is allowed by quashing Annexure-A1 First Information Report[FIR], Annexure-A2 Final report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.386/2019 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Koyilandy, as against the petitioner. The Crl.M.C is ordered accordingly. Sd/- **C.S.DIAS,JUDGE** rmm/15/3/2024 Crl.M.C.No.1585 of 2024 _-:8:-_ ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1585/2024`** |**`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`**|**`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`**| |---|---| |**`Annexure A1`**|**`CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.`**| ||**`74/2019 OF KOYILANDY POLICE STATION`**| |**`Annexure A2`**|**`CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT`**| ||**`FILED BY THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,`**| ||**`KOYILANDY BEFORE THE JFCM COURT`**| ||**`KOYILANDY ALONG WITH THE MEMORANDUM OF`**| ||**`EVIDENCE`**| |**`Annexure A3`**|**`AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT`**| |**`Annexure A4`**|**`AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT`**| |**`Annexure A5`**|**`AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT`**|