High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed

Shifadh and others v. Jinu and others and State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No. 1054 of 2014

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • K. Ramakrishnan, J.
Judgment Date
2014-02-06
Court Decision / Holding
This criminal miscellaneous case is allowed; the proceedings against petitioners in CC No. 773/2012 (Crime No. 361/2011, Nenmara Police Station) are quashed under Section 482 CrPC. The office is directed to communicate the order to the concerned court for appropriate action.
Final Disposition
Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • SHIFADH
  • BASIL
  • MANOJ
  • JITHUN
  • SUNILKUMAR
  • VINEESH KUMAR

Respondents

  • JINU
  • SUBASH
  • JIBIN
  • RANJITH
  • SUNEESH
  • SUBASH
  • STATE OF KERALA represented by Public Prosecutor

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • M. Revikrishnan

Counsels for Respondents

  • • V.A. Johnson (Varikkappallil)
  • • Smt. S. Hyma

Case Synopsis & Summary

This petition under Section 482 CrPC seeks to quash the criminal proceedings in CC No. 773/2012 arising from Crime No. 361/2011 of Nenmara Police Station. The case concerns a clash among students linked to political organizations at NSS College, Nenmara, on 13-10-2011, where offences under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 324 r/w Section 149 IPC were alleged. Petitioners, accused Nos. 1 to 6 (Shifadh, Basil, Manoj, Jithun, Sunil kumar, and Vineesh Kumar), along with the defacto-complainants and the injured, now seek quashing after recording a settlement under Section 482 CrPC, arguing that continuing proceedings would adversely affect their future prospects and that some offences are non-compoundable. Respondents, including Jinu, Subash, Jibin, Ranjith, Suneesh, another Subash, and the State (represented by Public Prosecutor), supported by counsel, opposed the quashing. The Court notes the settlement, the lack of other criminal activity by the petitioners, and the compassionate stance that the parties wish to lead peaceful lives. Citing Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, the court recognizes that in exceptional cases with private disputes and settlement, quashing may be appropriate to advance ends of justice. The High Court allows the petition, quashes CC 773/2012, and directs communication of the order to the concerned court.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)Sections 143, 147, 148, 324 read with Section 149 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Ends of justice
  • Abuse of process of law

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argued for quashing under Section 482 CrPC in light of a recorded settlement between the accused and the victims, highlighting that the offences involve a private dispute among students and noting the non-productive continuation of proceedings would ruin their future prospects. They relied on the principle from Gian Singh v. State of Punjab that where a settlement exists and the ends of justice require it, the High Court may quash criminal proceedings.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents opposed quashing, pointing to offences under IPC (non-compoundable in some instances) and arguing that continuance of the case is necessary to preserve public interest and the integrity of the judiciary. The Public Prosecutor represented the State in opposing the application.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab2012(4) KLT 108 (SC)PositiveCited as supportive authority for quashing criminal proceedings in exceptional cases where there is a settlement and ends of justice require it.

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 Shifadh and others v. Jinu and others and 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 K.RAMAKRISHNAN** **THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/17TH MAGHA, 1935`** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1054 of 2014** ## **----------------------------------** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC 773/2012 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ALATHUR CRIME NO. 361/2011 OF NENMARA POLICE STATION , PALAKKAD** **--------------** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS 1 TO 6:** **-------------------------------------------------------** **1. SHIFADH, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED HANEEFA, MELEPADAMKULAM, MELARKODE PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** **2. BASIL, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.ISSAC, THAMARACHALIL HOUSE, PATTAYAMPADAM KORENCHIRA, KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD.** ## **3. MANOJ, AGED 22 YEARS** **S/O.RAJU, CHEKUNNI, KARIMPARA PALAKKAD.** ## **4. JITHUN, AGED 22 YEARS** - **S/O.GANGADHARAN, NANDHANAM HOUSE, CHERAMANGALAM PALAKKAD.** ## **5. SUNILKUMAR, AGED 25 YEARS,** - **S/O.SASI, CHUVATTUPADAM KANAKKANTHURUTHY, VADAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD.** **6. VINEESH KUMAR, AGED 24 YEARS S/O.CHANDRAN, KURAPPADAM HOUSE, KARIMPARA PALAKKAD.** **BY ADV. SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN** ## **RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/CW4-8 AND STATE:** **-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. JINU, AGED 23 YEARS S/O.VELAYUDHAN, KUNNATH HOUSE, KAMMANTHARA VADAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** **PJ** **...2/-** **..2..** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1054 of 2014** ## **----------------------------------** **2. SUBASH, AGED 22 YEARS S/O.GOPALAN, THAYANKAD HOUSE, OLASSERY PALAKKAD.** **3. JIBIN, AGED 22 YEARS S/O.NARAYANAN, AIYYANPUTHUR HOUSE, CHITTUR PALAKKAD.** ## **4. RANJITH, AGED 22 YEARS** - **S/O.JAYACHANDRAN, KARAYAMKAD HOUSE, VADAKKENCHERRY PALAKKAD.** **5. SUNEESH, AGED 21 YEARS S/O.SASI, VELLIYALACKALA HOUSE, THIRUVAZHIAD THIRUTHAMPADAM, PALAKKAD.** **6. SUBASH, AGED 21 YEARS S/O.BHASKARAN, PERUMKUNNAM HOUSE, VILAYANNUR PALAKKAD.** **7. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **R1-6 BY ADV. SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL) R7 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-02-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **PJ** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1054 of 2014 -----------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** ## **-------------------------------------** - **ANNEXURE-A: PHOTO COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.361/2011 OF NENMARA POLICE STATION IN PALAKKAD DISTRICT IN CC NO.773/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF JUDICIAL IST CLASS MAGISTRATE, ALATHUR.** - **ANNEXURE-B: AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN EVIDENCING THE AFORESAID SETTLEMENT** - **ANNEXURE-C: AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT HEREIN EVIDENCING THE AFORESAID SETTLEMENT** - **ANNEXURE-D: AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT HEREIN EVIDENCING THE AFORESAID SETTLEMENT.** - **ANNEXURE-E: AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT HEREIN EVIDENCING THE AFORESAID SETTLEMENT** - **ANNEXURE-F: AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT HEREIN EVIDENCING THE AFORESAID SETTLEMENT** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **---------------------------------------** **NIL.** ## **/ TRUE COPY /** ## **P.S. TO JUDGE** **PJ** K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J. -----------------------------------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.1054 of 2014 --------------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 6[th] day of February, 2014 ## O R D E R This criminal miscellaneous case is filed by accused Nos. 1 to 6 in C.C.773/12 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Alathur, to quash the proceedings, recording the composition entered into between the petitioners and the injured persons, including the defacto-complainant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the 'Code'). 2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 6 in C.C.No.773/12 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Alathur. The case was originated on the basis of a crime registered by the Nenmara Police as Crime No.361/2011 of Nenmara Police Station, alleging offences under Section 143, 147, 148, and 324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution allegation was that on 13.10.2011, at Crl.M.C. No.1054 of 2014 2 about 12.30, hours the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and beat the defacto-complainant with bamboo sticks due to the animosity in connection with a clash between Kerala Students Union by the Students Federation of India students. After investigation, final report has been filed and the case has been taken on the file by the learned magistrate as C.C.No.773/2012. Now the matter has been settled between the parties. They have realised their mistake and now settled in their life. The pending case will affect their future prospects. Since some of the offences are non-compoundable in nature, they cannot file a compounding application before the concerned court. So they have no other option but to seek the intervention of this court, to quash the proceedings, after recording composition under Section 482 of the 'Code'. Hence the petition. 3. The respondents 1 to 7, who are the defactocomplainant and injured in the case, appeared through counsel and also filed affidavits supporting the case of the Crl.M.C. No.1054 of 2014 3 petitioners. 4. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also, who opposed the application. 5. It is an admitted fact that, while the petitioners and respondents 1 to 7 were studying in N.S.S. College, Nenmara, there occurred a clash in connection with some incident between two group of students political organisation and the police has registered case and counter case against the petitioners and respondents 1 to 7 in respect of that incident. Both petitioners and respondents 1 to 7 represented one fraction or other of the political student's union. The matter has been settled between the parties now. They have completed their studies and settled in life. It is quite unfortunate that, the students now without going the consequences of their act, on some fanciful aspiration to become leaders in a political party involve in such activities. Further they also did not know the pains taken by their parents, for educating them, by spending their harder earned money. These things were Crl.M.C. No.1054 of 2014 4 done by the students in fact at the instigation of political parties, without knowing the fact that, it will affect their future. 6. However, though it is in the nature of a political issue, considering the fact that the poor students without knowing the consequences have involved in such activities and the pendency of these cases are likely to affect their future and also considering the fact that they have now repenting for what they have done, I feel that, it can be treated as an exceptional case where, (though normally courts should not inclined to invoke the jurisdiction), this court has to invoke the power to provide them better prospects in their life, especially when they have understood their mistake and wanted to rectify them in future. Further the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is no other criminal case registered and pending against them except this case. So they do not have any criminal background as well. In the decision reported in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012(4) KLT 108 (SC)],** Crl.M.C. No.1054 of 2014 5 ## it has been observed as follows: “But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc., or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. 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 the criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and 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 affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” In view of the above discussions made and also considering the fact that things done during the student life has been realised to be a mistake by the petitioners and the respondents 1 to 7 and they want to console themselves, forgetting their political ideologies which they carried during their college days and want to lead a peaceful life, after getting good employment for which this could not Crl.M.C. No.1054 of 2014 6 stand in the way, I feel that it is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of the 'Code' has to be invoked to quash the proceedings to make them settle in their life in a proper and prospective manner. Further since, the matter has been settled between the parties, there is no probability of conviction if it is allowed to proceed with. So this criminal miscellaneous case is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.773/2012 (Crime No.361/2011 of Nenmara Police Station) on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Alathur, is quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court for appropriate further action. Sd/- K. Ramakrishnan, Judge // True Copy // P.A. to Judge ss