Shamsudeen @ SHA and others v State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
Judgment Date: 2017-01-23
Court Decision / Holding: Petition allowed; the proceedings in S.C.No.526 of 2016 are quashed and Annexure-I final report and all related proceedings against the petitioners are quashed.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; quashed the pending criminal proceedings in S.C.No.526 of 2016.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Shamsudeen @ SHA
Sanooj
Shabin
Nismal
Ansar

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Sub Inspector of Police, Mattanchery Police Station, Ernakulam
Safeer, S/o Najeeeb, aged 20 years

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K.S. Madhusoodanan
• M.M. Vinod Kumar
• P.K. Rakesh Kumar
• K.S. Mizver
• Smt. S. Jessin

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor Sri.E.C. Bineesh
• Sri.S.K. Balachandran

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case under Section 482 CrPC, seeking quashing of proceedings in S.C.526 of 2016 pending in the Additional Sessions Court (for trials relating to Atrocities and Sexual Violence against Women and Children) at Ernakulam. The petitioners, five accused (Shamsudeen @ SHA, Sanooj, Shabin, Nismal, and Ansar), faced offences alleged to have been committed from August 2013 in connection with a hardware store dispute, culminating in a criminal case. While the matter was pending, the parties reportedly settled their disputes amicably, supported by Annexure II (agreement) and Annexure III (affidavit). The 3rd respondent appeared through counsel, asserting the disputes have been settled and that there is no subsisting grievance, arguing that continuing the proceedings would be futile. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about invoking Section 482, but acknowledged no other cases against the petitioners. The court relies on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 to recognize that quashing may be appropriate where settlement serves ends of justice and prevents abuse of process. The judge found the offences not grave and that continued prosecution would be a waste of time. The petition is allowed, and Annexure I final report and all proceedings in S.C.526 of 2016 are quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ends of justice
Prevention of abuse of the process of law
Amicable settlement as a basis for quashing criminal proceedings
Secure ends of justice when settlement exists

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argued that the disputes were amicably settled, and continued criminal proceedings would be futile and contrary to justice. They noted the amicable settlement evidenced by Annexures II and III and asserted that there is no subsisting grievance; invoking 482 CrPC is warranted to secure ends of justice and prevent abuse when settlement exists, as supported by Gian Singh and Narinder Singh.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about quashing a case under 482 CrPC solely on settlement, though noted no other cases against petitioners. He emphasized that the offence may not be grave and stressed the need to ensure justice is not bypassed by a mere settlement; however, no definitive contrary authority was cited; the court must evaluate ends of justice and abuse of process.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	(2012) 10 SCC 303	Positive	Apex Court held that High Courts may quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases where a settlement exists and it would secure ends of justice, thus supporting quashing in amicable settlements.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	(2014) 6 SCC 466	Positive	Court reiterated that ends of justice and prevention of abuse of process guide the decision to quash when parties settle disputes.

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 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2017/3RD MAGHA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 179 of 2017** **-----------------------** **SC 526/2016 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN & CHILDREN) CRIME NO. 54/2014 OF MATTANCHERRY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM** **......** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS 1 TO 5: ---------------------------------** ## **1. SHAMSUDEEN @ SHA,** **S/O.MUHAMMED, AGED 57 YEARS, C C 7/806, KALLARAKKALPARAMBU, CHAKKAMADAM, MATTANCHERY, COCHIN-682002.** **2. SANOJ,** **S/O.SHAMSUDEEN @ SHA, AGED 34 YEARS, C.C.7/806, KALLARAKKALPARAMBU, CHAKKAMADAM, MATTANCHERY, COCHIN-682002.** **3. SHABIN,** **S/O.MUHAMMED, AGED 26 YEARS, C.C.7/806, KALLARAKKALPARAMBU, CHAKKAMADAM, MATTANCHERY, COCHIN-682002.** **4. NISMAL,** **S/O.V.M. HUSSAIN, AGED 34 YEARS, C.C.20/571, NAMBIAPURAM, PALLURUTHY, COCHIN 682006.** **5. ANSAR,** **S/O.V.M. ASRAF, AGED 32, C.C.13/600, PUTHIYAVEETTIL PARAMBIL, CHITHUPARAMBU, KOCHANGADI, KOCHI-682 005.** **BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN** **SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR SRI.P.K.RAKESH KUMAR SRI.K.S.MIZVER SMT.S.JESSIN** **msv/** **-2-** **-2-** ## **Crl.MC.No. 179 of 2017** ## **-----------------------** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/FORMAL PARTY/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** **-----------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA TO BE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MATTANCHERY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM.** **3. SAFEER, S/O.NAJEEB, AGED 20 YEARS, MUNDATHINKAL FLAT, CHOICE ROAD, EDAKOCHI, COCHIN - 682 007.** **R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.E.C.BINEESH R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.K.BALACHANDRAN** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **msv/** **Crl.MC.No. 179 of 2017 -----------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES ------------------------ANNEXURE I CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME 54/2014 OF MATTANCHERY POLICE STATION ANNEXURE II ORIGINAL COPY OF AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONERS AND 3RD RESPONDENT DTD 28/12/2016. ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD 28/12/2016. RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURE ----------------------NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S.TO JUDGE** **msv/** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## Crl.M.C. No. 179 of 2017 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 23[rd] January, 2017 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **ORDER** - 1.This petition is filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' ) with a prayer to invoke the extraordinary inherent powers and to quash the pending criminal proceedings. 2. The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1 to 5 in S.C.No.526 of 2016 pending on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (for the trial of the cases relating to Atrocities and Sexual Violence against Women and Children), Ernakulam. - 3.The 3[rd] respondent was working in a hardware store run by the 1[st] petitioner. According to the 3[rd] respondent, the petitioners 1 to 5 in furtherance of their common intention assaulted him physically and mentally from the month of August, 2013 and thus committed the offences. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners Crl.M.C. No.179 of 2017 -2- that during the pendency of the proceedings, the disputes were talked over between the parties and they have decided to settle the same amicably. - 5.The 3[rd] respondent has entered appearance through counsel and submits referring to Annexure-III affidavit that the disputes have been settled and the parties have decided to give a quietus to all their pending disputes. It is submitted that they are living in peace and harmony and the continuance of criminal proceedings against the petitioners is a futile exercise as they have no subsisting grievance. - 6.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. No.179 of 2017 -3- 7.The position with regard to quashing of proceedings on the basis of compromise between the parties is by now well settled. In **Gian singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303** Apex Court has laid down that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. It was observed as follows : _“61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”_ 8.The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court ## in **Narinder singh v. State of Punjab. (2014) 6 SCC** **466,** the pertinent observations which are as under: Crl.M.C. No.179 of 2017 -4- ## _XXXXXXXXXXX_ _29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:_ _(i) ends of justice, or_ _(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives._ _xxxxxxx_ _xxxxxxx_ 9.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. It is felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and secure the ends of justice. Even otherwise, persisting with the prosecution would be nothing but a waste of time as the prospects of conviction would be bleak. Crl.M.C. No.179 of 2017 -5- 10.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 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as S.C.No.526 of 2016 pending on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (for the trial of the cases relating to Atrocities and Sexual Violence against Women and Children), Ernakulam are quashed. sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE** kp/24.1.17