High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-12-09Quashed the criminal proceedings under CC No.69...

Shanavas @ Shanu and others v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No. 7777 of 2016

Neutral Citation:/null

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date: 2016-12-09
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is allowed. The High Court, invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, quashes the proceedings in CC No.696/2015 and the final report; all further proceedings pursuant thereto are quashed.
Final Disposition: Quashed the criminal proceedings under CC No.696/2015; proceedings quashed and final report set aside.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Shanavas @ Shanu
Charly Sidiq @ Sidiq
Charly Sathar @ Sathar
Tayar Fisal @ Fisal
Anangoor Seidhu T Muhammed Husain
Reyas

Respondents

State of Kerala
Ibrahim Bhadusha @ Bhadusha

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. T.B. Shajimon
• Smt. Govindu P. Renukadevi

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. Lohithakshan Chathadi Kannoth
• Public Prosecutor Sri Ajmad Ali

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Misc. Case (Crl.MC 7777 of 2016) before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. The petition, under section 482 CrPC, seeks to quash CC No.696/2015 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Kasaragod, arising from Crime No.384/2015 of Vidyanagar Police Station. The six petitioners-accused were charged with offences including unlawful assembly (section 143), rioting (section 147), rioting armed with deadly weapon (section 148), wrongful restraint (section 341), and voluntarily causing hurt (sections 323, 324) read with 149 IPC. The prosecution alleges that on August 31, 2015, at around 10 PM, the petitioners formed an unlawful assembly and restrained the injured party and assaulted him. The petition emphasizes that the dispute between the parties is personal and has been amicably resolved; as such continuing with criminal proceedings would be unfair and contrary to justice. The arguments rely on Supreme Court decisions Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014), which permit quashing where settlement exists if ends of justice require or to prevent abuse of process. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about invoking 482; however, the judge found that the case is not grave, well within the scope of quashing, and that quashing would promote peace and ends of justice. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings.

Provisions of Law Cited

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

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ends of justice
Abuse of process of court
Amicable settlement / compromise as basis to quash criminal proceedings (Gian Singh; Narinder Singh)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that the dispute between the accused and the complainant is personal and has been amicably settled. Quashing the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC would serve Ends of Justice and prevent abuse of process, given the lack of public interest involved and the absence of grave/serious offenses. Citing Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014), they urge the High Court to exercise its inherent powers to terminate the case.

Contentions of Respondents

The State counters that quashing is not warranted in a case involving multiple offenses and potential public interest. While settlement exists, the prosecution contends that Section 482 powers should be exercised with caution; the seriousness of the alleged offenses and the likelihood of conviction must be weighed. The Public Prosecutor reserved his position; no other cases against petitioners were reported.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012(10) SCC 303	Positive	Cited to support that amicable settlements can justify quashing criminal proceedings if ends of justice require and continuation would be unfair or abusive.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	2014(6) SCC 466	Positive	The decision reiterates ends of justice and preventing abuse of process as guiding factors in quashing proceedings after 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 Shanavas @ Shanu 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** ## **FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 7777 of 2016 () ---------------------------** ## **AGAINST CC NO.696/2015 of C.J.M.,KASARAGOD CRIME NO. 384/2015 OF VIDYANAGAR POLICE STATION, KASARGOD** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED** **-------------------** **1. SHANAVAS @ SHANU AGED 25 YEARS, S/O PRAMEELA FATHIMA, NISHA QUARTERS, ISAT NAGAR, KASARAGOD, KERALA** **2. CHARLY SIDIQ @ SIDIQ AGED 32 YEARS,S/O KUNHALI, SP NAGAR, MADHOOR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD, KERALA** **3. CHARLY SATHAR @ SATHAR AGED 27 YEARS,S/O KUNHALI, SP NAGAR,MADHOOR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD, KERALA** **4. TAYAR FISAL @ FISAL AGED 27 YEARS , S/O ABDUL KHADAR, AKG NAGAR, SEETHAMGOLI ROAD, KASARAGOD, KERALA** **5. ANAGOOR SIEDHU T MUHAMMED HUSAIN AGED 27 YEARS , S/O MUHAMMAD, ANANGOOR, NOW RESIDING AT CHALA ROAD VIDYANAGAR, KASARAGOD, KERALA** **6. REYAS AGED 25 YEARS , S/O HUSINE, PUTHUMANNU HOUSE, PUTHUMANNU CHERKALA XXIII NO.642 HOUSE, KASARAGOD, KERALA** **BY ADVS.SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON SMT.GOVINDU P.RENUKADEVI** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINAT/STATE** **---------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA** - **REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ENAKULAM** - **2. IBRAHIM BHADUSHA @ BHADUSHA AGED 20 YEARS , S/O MOHAMMED, R/AT NO.19/15 BISMILLA MANZIL S.P.NAGAR, MADHOOR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD, KERALA** **R2 BY ADV. SRI.LOHITHAKSHAN CHATHADI KANNOTH BY PUBLIC PROSECUTORSRI.AMJAD ALI** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.MC.No. 7777 of 2016 ()** ## **---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES** **ANNEXURE-A1 THE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT** RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: **NIL** **/TRUE COPY/** **VPS PS TO JUDGE** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.7777 of 2016** ## **----------------------------------------Dated this the 9[th] day of December, 2016** ## **O R D E R** - 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 6 in C.C. No.696 of 2015 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasaragod. In the aforesaid case, they stand indicted under sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 read with 149 of the IPC. - 3.The prosecution allegation is that on 31.8.2015 at 10 p.m., the petitioners herein formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and wrongfully restrained the 2[nd] Crl.M.C.7777/2016 2 respondent and thereafter assaulted him causing injuries. 4.Heard the submissions advanced. 5.The learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. Attention of this Court is invited to the affidavit filed by him to buttress their submission. It is urged that the dispute is purely personal in nature and would not affect public peace or tranquility. Summing up it is prayed that the criminal proceedings be terminated to promote peace and harmony. - 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. - 7.I have considered the submissions . Crl.M.C.7777/2016 3 ## 8.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.”_ ## 9.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: _XXXXXXXXXXXX_ _29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis_ Crl.M.C.7777/2016 4 _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_ 10.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. 11.Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court will be well justified in Crl.M.C.7777/2016 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 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.C. No.696 of 2015 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasaragod are quashed. **Sd/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE** vps