High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-10-25Quashed

Shameem @ Shameemudheen and others v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No. 5568 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date: 2016-10-25
Court Decision / Holding: This petition is allowed. Annexure-I FIR in Crime No.264 of 2016 of Kottakkal Police Station and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners are quashed.
Final Disposition: Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Shameem @ Shameemudheen, S/O.Saidalavi, aged 22 years, Parammal Kudukkengal House, Ponmundam Amsom Desom, Malappuram District
Jabir, S/O.Aboobacker, aged 19 years, Pathiyil House, Randathani P.O., Malappuram District-676510
Muhammedali P.V., S/O.Kutt yhassan, aged 19 years, Puthuvallil House, Karekkad. P.O., Kadampuzha, Malappuram District-676553
Rahmathulla, S/O.Rayin Hari, aged 24 years, Kadakkadan House, Kolkal am, Chengottur, Malappuram District-676503
Shuhaib, S/O.Abd u, aged 22 years, Karikuri yatt il House, Othuk kungal, P.O. Mattathur, Malappuram District-676528

Respondents

State of Kerala, represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Kottakkal Police Station, through Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Muhammed Shayaf, S/O.Muhammed Shareef, aged 19 years, Thamarasseri House, Choonur, Chengottur. P.O., Malappuram District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. U.K. Devidas

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor Sri.T.R. Renjith
• Adv. Sri.Prinsun Philip

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a criminal miscellaneous case under section 482 CrPC filed in the Kerala High Court seeking to quash proceedings in Crime No. 264/2016 of Kottakkal Police Station. Five petitioners (accused nos. 1 to 5) are alleged to have formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted the de facto complainant on 15.06.2016 with weapons, in offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 326 read with 149 IPC. The 2nd respondent, the de facto complainant, filed an affidavit stating he has no subsisting grievance and does not wish to pursue the proceedings. The petitioners contended that the case should be quashed in light of a settlement between the parties, invoking the extraordinary power under section 482 CrPC, supported by principles from Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and subsequent guidelines in Narinder Singh and Rajesh Kamath J. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations but recognized the need to consider the settled nature of the dispute. The judge found that the offence is not grave, society impact is limited, and the settlement reduces the likelihood of conviction, making continued proceedings oppressive. Relying on the Gian Singh framework and the cited guidelines, the court exercised its discretion to quash the proceedings. The petition is allowed, and the FIR and all proceedings in Crime No. 264/2016 are quashed against the petitioners.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 CrPCSections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 326 read with 149 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 – 482 CrPC quashing in settlements; limits in crimes against society; preference for private settlement in civil flavour cases
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 – guidelines on quashing under 482 in settlement contexts
Rajesh Kamath J. v. Mohana Kurup (AIR 2016 SC 2452) – further guidelines on quashing in settlement scenarios

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submitted that Section 482 CrPC empowers the High Court to quash criminal proceedings, especially where there is a private settlement. Relying on Gian Singh, Narinder Singh and Rajesh Kamath J., they argued that the offences are not grave and the settlement renders the likelihood of conviction remote; continuing proceedings would oppress the petitioners and waste judicial resources. They emphasized that the 2nd respondent has given up grievance by affidavit and that the dispute is predominantly civil in flavour, arising from private dispute.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about using 482 CrPC in this case, arguing it is not warranted to quash in the backdrop of violent offences and weapons; he noted the societal interest in maintaining law and order and public order. While acknowledging the 2nd respondent’s affidavit of no grievance, he argued that quashing should not undermine state interest and the rule of law. The prosecutor urged cautious application of 482, balancing private settlement with public interest, and questioned whether the case should be quashed in the absence of a broader public interest impact.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another	(2012) 10 SCC 303	Positive	Cited to support exercise of 482 CrPC in cases with private settlements and civil flavour; not to extend to crimes against society.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	(2014) 6 SCC 466	Positive	Guidelines on quashing under 482 in settlement contexts.
Rajesh Kamath J. and Others v. Mohana Kurup and Others	(AIR) 2016 SC 2452	Positive	Recent guidance on quashing in settlement scenarios.

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 Shameem @ Shameemudheen 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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/3RD KARTHIKA, 1938** ## **Crl.MC.No. 5568 of 2016 ()** **--------------------------CRIME NO. 264/2016 OF KOTTAKKAL POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **.....** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 5:** **-------------------------------------------------------** **1. SHAMEEM @ SHAMEEMUDHEEN, S/O.SAIDALAVI, AGED 22 YEARS, PARAMMAL KUDUKKENGAL HOUSE, PONMUNDAM AMSOM DESOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **2. JABIR,** - **S/O.ABOOBACKER, AGED 19 YEARS, PATHIYIL HOUSE, RANDATHANI. P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 510.** **3. MUHAMMEDALI P.V.,** - **S/O.KUTTYHASSAN, AGED 19 YEARS, PUTHUVALLIL HOUSE, KAREKKAD. P.O., KADAMPUZHA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 553.** **4. RAHMATHULLA,** - **S/O.RAYIN HAARI, AGED 24 YEARS, KADAKKADAN HOUSE, KOLKALAM, CHENGOTTUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 503.** **5. SHUHAIB,** - **S/O.ABDU, AGED 22 YEARS, KARIKURIYATTIL HOUSE, OTHUKKUNGAL, P.O. MATTATHUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 528.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS.** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT:** **----------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTAKKAL POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** ## **Crl.MC.No. 5568 of 2016** **2. MUHAMMED SHAYAF, S/O.MUHAMMED SHAREEF, AGED 19 YEARS, THAMARASSERI HOUSE, CHOONUR, CHENGOTTUR. P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.R. RENJITH. R2 BY ADV. SRI.PRINSUN PHILIP** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** rs. ## **Crl.MC.No. 5568 of 2016** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-** **ANNEXURE I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.264/2016 OF KOTTAKKAL POLICE STATION DATED 15.06.2016. ANNEXURE II COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION STATEMENT IN CRIME NO.264/2016 OF KOTTAKKAL POLICE STATION DATED 15.06.2016. ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE FROM THE HEARTS MALABAR SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL, KOTTAKKAL DATED 12.07.2016. ANNEXURE IV THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 06.08.2016 EXECUTED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:NIL.** ## **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** rs. ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.5568 of 2016 ----------------------------------------Dated this the 25[th] day of October, 2016** ## **O R D E R** - 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 in Crime No.264 of 2016 of Kottakkal Police Station. The aforesaid crime has been registered at the instance of the 2[nd] respondent herein for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 326 read with 149 of the IPC. - 2.The prosecution allegation is that on 15.6.2016 at 2.15 pm, the petitioners formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common object assaulted the de facto complainant with weapons and caused injuries. Crl.M.C.5568/2016 2 - 3.The 2[nd] respondent has entered appearance through his counsel and has filed Annexure-IV affidavit wherein he stated that he has no subsisting grievance against the 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. Crl.M.C.5568/2016 3 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 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 Crl.M.C.5568/2016 4 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, 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 Crl.M.C.5568/2016 5 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 invoking its extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings. In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-I FIR in Crime No.264 of 2016 of Kottakkal Police Station and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners are quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE** vps