High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-10-24Petition allowed; quashing of FIR and proceedin...

Shakir and others v. State of Kerala and NISAMUDIN

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C. No. 2067 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
Judgment Date: 2016-10-24
Court Decision / Holding: Petition allowed; Annexure A1 FIR in Crime No. 310/2015 of Mukkom Police Station and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners are quashed.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; quashing of FIR and proceedings against petitioners.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Shakir
Muhammed Navas K.P.
Muhammed Jamsir
Muhammed Ajnas K.K.
Muhammed Asik
Navas
Subish
Muhammed Rabeeh

Respondents

State of Kerala
NISAMUDIN

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri A. Ranjith Narayanan
• Smt. A. Simi

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Aneesh Joseph
• Public Prosecutor Sri Amjad Ali

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a criminal miscellaneous case under Section 482 CrPC, decided by a single judge of the Kerala High Court. The petitioners, eight accused named as Shakir, Muhammed Navas K.P., Muhammed Jamsir, Muhammed Ajnas K.K., Muhammed Asik, Navas, Subish, and Muhammed Rabeeh, are arraigned in Crime No. 310/2015 of Mukkom Police Station, alleging offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323 and 324 read with Section 149 of the IPC. The second respondent, Nisamuddin, who had been assaulted and restrained on 27.6.2015, filed a response through counsel and submitted an affidavit stating that he has no subsisting grievance and does not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings. The petitioners seek quashing under Section 482 CrPC on the basis of a settlement between the parties, arguing the offence is not grave and continuation would cause oppression. The Public Prosecutor initially expressed reservations about using 482 in such a case, though no other cases against the petitioners were reported. The court relies on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) for the broadening of 482 powers beyond Section 320 CrPC, noting that private settlements and civil-flavour offences may be quashed, while crimes against society are outside this scope. Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Rajesh Kamath J. v. Mohana Kurup are cited for guidelines. Considering the lack of gravity, the settled dispute, and the prejudice that continuing would cause, the court allows the petition and quashes the FIR and proceedings.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal ProcedureSections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323 and 324 read with Section 149 of the IPCSection 320 CrPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC can be based on settlements between private parties and on a compromise between the offender and the victim; not extendable to crimes against society.
Crimes having an overwhelming and predominating civil flavour, particularly offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership, or similar transactions, may be quashed if the parties have resolved their dispute mutually.
Guidelines from Gian Singh v. State of Punjab; Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab; Rajesh Kamath J. v. Mohana Kurup to exercise 482 power in settlement-based scenarios.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that the High Court, under Section 482 CrPC, has wide power to quash criminal proceedings, especially where there is a genuine settlement between the parties and the offence is not grave. They contend that the respondent has expressed no grievance, the likelihood of conviction is remote, and continued proceedings would cause oppression and prejudice, outweighing public interest in pursuing criminal action.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents’ counsel expressed reservations about invoking 482 in such a case, arguing that the extraordinary power should not be exercised lightly. The Public Prosecutor noted no prior cases against the petitioners but urged caution in using settlements to terminate criminal proceedings.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another	2012 (10) SCC 303	Positive	Expands 482 CrPC power to quash beyond 320 CrPC, allowing quashing based on settlements and private compromises in cases with civil flavour.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	2014 (6) SCC 466	Positive	Provides guidelines for settlement-based quashing under 482 CrPC.
Rajesh Kamath J. v. Mohana Kurup and Others	AIR 2016 SC 2452	Positive	Further guidelines on exercise of 482 CrPC power in settlement contexts.

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 Shakir and others v. State of Kerala and NISAMUDIN 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 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/2ND KARTHIKA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 2067 of 2016 ()** **---------------------------** ## **AGAINST CRIME NOL310/2015 OF MUKKOM POLICE STATION** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:** **---------------------** ## **1. SHAKIR** **AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.KUNJIMUHAMED, KUNNATHMALAYIL HOUSE, NEELESWARAM, P.O.MUKKOM, KOZHIKODE - 673 582.** **2. MUHAMED NAVAS K.P.** - **AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.MUJIBRAHMAN, KARIVILLIPARA HOUSE, NEELESWARAM, P.O.MUKKOM, KOZHIKODE - 673 582.** **3. MUHAMED JAMSIR,** - **AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.IBRHIM, THAZHEKUNNATH HOUSE, NEELESWARAM, P.O.MUKKOM, KOZHIKODE - 673 582.** **4. MUHAMED AJNAS K.K.** - **AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.ABUBACKER, KUTIYERIKUNNUMAL HOUSE, NEELESWARAM, P.O.MUKKOM, KOZHIKODE - 673 582.** **5. MUHAMED ASIK** - **AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.ASAYIN, ASARIMAKAL HOUSE, NEELESWARAM, P.O.MUKKOM, KOZHIKODE - 673 582.** **6. NAVAS** - **AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.UMMER, CHETIANCHALIL HOUSE, NEELESWARAM, P.O.MUKKOM, KOZHIKODE - 673 582.** **7. SUBISH** - **AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.SUBRAMANIAN, PERINGATT HOUSE, NEELESWARAM, P.O.MUKKOM, KOZHIKODE - 673 582.** **8. MUHAMED RABEEH,** - **AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.RASHEED, PUTHIYEDATH HOUSE, MANASSERY, P.O.MUKKOM, KOZHIKODE - 673 582.** - **BY ADVS.SRI.A.RANJITH NARAYANAN SMT.A.SIMI** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE, DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/INJURED:** ## **--------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA** **REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031, REPRESENTING THE SHO, MUKKOM POLICE, KOZHIKODE - 673 602.** ## **2. NISAMUDIN** **AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, PALAPARAMBATH HOUSE, NEELESWARAM AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK AND DISTRICT-673 582.** **R2 BY ADV. SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.MC.No. 2067 of 2016 () ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONERS)' ANNEXURES -----------------------** **A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR DATED 28.06.2015 IN CRIME NO.310/2015 OF MUKKOM POLICE STATION.** **A2 DULY ATTESTED AFFIDAVIT DATED 01.02.2016 SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL -----------------------** **TRUE COPY** **P.A.TO JUDGE.** **==> picture [13 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----**<br> kp<br>**----- End of picture text -----**<br> ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 2067 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 24[th] October, 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **ORDER** - 1.This petition filed 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 Crime No.310 of 2015 of Mukkom Police Station. The said crime has been registered at the instance of the 2[nd] respondent herein alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323 and 324 read with Section 149 of the IPC. - 2.The prosecution allegation is that on 27.6.2015 at 11 am, the petitioners herein wrongfully restrained the 2[nd] respondent who was travelling in a motor cycle and assaulted him with a reaper causing injuries. - 3.The 2[nd] respondent has entered appearance through his counsel and has filed Annexure-A2 affidavit wherein he has stated that he has no subsisting grievance against the Crl.M.C. No.2067 of 2016 -2- petitioners. He asserts in the affidavit that he does not wish that the criminal proceedings against the petitioners should continue. - 4.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. - 5.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. - 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 Code, to quash criminal proceedings. It was Crl.M.C. No.2067 of 2016 -3- held that the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Code, is not limited to quashing proceedings within the ambit and scope of Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The three - Judge Bench in the above case, clearly expounded, that quashing of criminal proceedings under S.482 of the 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. In all such cases, the parties should have resolved their entire dispute by themselves, Crl.M.C. No.2067 of 2016 -4- mutually. Further, guidelines were 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 respondent No.2 has 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 2[nd] respondent to great oppression and prejudice. - 8.Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court will be well justified in Crl.M.C. No.2067 of 2016 -5- invoking its extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings. In the result, this petition will stand allowed. AnnexureA1 FIR in Crime No.310 of 2015 of Mukkom Police Station and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners are quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE** kp/-24.10.16