Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed; proceedings in CC 453/2021 against pet...

Shihabudheen.K and others v. State of Kerala and others

Case / Petition Number:CRL.MC NO.5078 OF 2022
Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A
Judgment Date
2022-08-19
Court Decision / Holding
Crl.M.C. allowed. Annexure A2 final report in Crime No. 435/2021 and all further proceedings in CC 453/2021 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ottapalam, against petitioners are quashed.
Final Disposition
Quashed; proceedings in CC 453/2021 against petitioners quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • SHIHABUDHEEN.K
  • RASAK K.S
  • RASHEED .K
  • MOHAMMED SHAFI.V.
  • MOHAMMED RASHIK. V.T
  • AHAMMED KABEER V.T
  • SHOUKATHALI.T.
  • MOHAMMED HARIZ.V

Respondents

  • STATE OF KERALA
  • MOIDHEEN
  • ABDUL NASAR
  • KUNJUMOIDHEEN C.T
  • MOIDHEEN
  • MUHAMMED NASEER C.T
  • YOU SAF M.A
  • KUNHIMANI @ HANEEFA

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • K.R.PAUL

Counsels for Respondents

  • • P.JAYARAM
  • • Sreeja V., Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Misc. Case (CRL.M.C. No. 5078 of 2022) before the Kerala High Court, assailing the order/judgment in CC 453/2021 pending before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ottapalam. The petitioners, eight accused, faced charges in Crime No. 435/2021 of Shornur Police Station for offences under IPC Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 506(1) read with Section 149. The prosecution contends that on 08.07.2021, at about 9 PM, the petitioners allegedly formed an unlawful assembly and attacked respondents 2 to 8 with dangerous weapons, resulting in injuries. The petition seeks quashing of further proceedings under Section 482 CrPC on the basis of a private settlement evidenced by affidavits (A3–A9) sworn by the injured/defacto complainants, who state they have no subsisting grievance and have no objection to quashing. The SHO has verified the settlement. The State and respondents concede the private nature of the dispute and that continued proceedings would not likely succeed given the settlement. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 4 KLT 108, the court holds this is a fit case to exercise its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC. Accordingly, the CRL.M.C is allowed; Annexure A2 final report and all further proceedings in CC 453/2021 are quashed against the petitioners.

Provisions of Law Cited

Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 506(1) read with Section 149 of IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another (2012(4) KLT 108) – quashing of criminal proceedings in light of settlement under the High Court's inherent powers (CrPC 482)
  • Inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings in the interest of justice

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that the dispute is private, and having arrived at a settlement evidenced by affidavits (A3–A9) with injured parties stating no subsisting grievance and no objection to quashing, continuing prosecution would serve no purpose. They urge invocation of the High Court's inherent power under Section 482 CrPC, following the principle in Gian Singh (2012) to quash the criminal proceedings.

Contentions of Respondents

The State and respondents acknowledge the settlement verified by the SHO and contend the private nature of the dispute and the lack of ongoing grievance justify quashing in the interest of justice; they rely on the settled nature of the matter to support quashing in proceedings to CC 453/2021.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another2012(4) KLT 108PositiveCourt relies on Gian Singh doctrine to exercise inherent powers under CrPC 482 to quash where private settlement exists.

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 Shihabudheen.K and others v. State of Kerala and others 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 ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.** **FRIDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 28TH SRAVANA, 1944** ## **CRL.MC NO. 5078 OF 2022** ## **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTCC 453/2021 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, OTTAPPALAM** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 TO 8:** |1|SHIHABUDHEEN.K, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL RASAK,| |---|---| ||KUNDUKULAM HOUSE, P.O. VALLAPPUZHA, PATTAMBI TALUK,| ||PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679336| |2|RASAK K.S, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. MOHAMMED,| ||KONGASSERY HOUSE, KURUVATOOR, VALLAPUZHA,| ||PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679336| |3|RASHEED .K, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. MOHAMMED,| ||KONGASSERY HOUSE, KURUVATOOR, VALLAPUZHA,| ||PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-, PIN - 679336| |4|MOHAMMED SHAFI.V.,AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. UMMER,| ||VELUTHAKKATHODI HOUSE, KURUVATOOR, VALLAPUZHA,| ||PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679336| |5|MOHAMMED RASHIK. V.T, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. UMMER| ||VELUTHAKKATHODI HOUSE, KURUVATOOR, VALLAPUZHA,| ||PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679336| |6|AHAMMED KABEER V.T. AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. SYEDUPPA,| ||VELUTHAKKATHODI HOUSE, KURUVATOOR, VALLAPUZHA,| ||PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679336| |7|SHOUKATHALI.T., AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. MOHAMMED HAJI,| ||THADATHIL VEEDU, KURUVATOOR, VALLAPUZHA,| ||PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679336| |8|MOHAMMED HARIZ.V, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. SUBAIR,| ||VARAMANGALATH VEEDU, KURUVATOOR, VALLAPUZHA,| ||PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679336| ||BY ADV K.R.PAUL| 2 Crl.M.C No.5078 of 2022 ## **RESPONDENT/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** |1|STATE OF KERALA| |---|---| ||REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR| ||HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031| |2|MOIDHEEN| ||AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED,| ||KAKKAATTIL HOUSE, KURUVATOOR P.O VALLAPUZHA,| ||PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679336| |3|ABDUL NASAR| ||AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED,| ||KAKKAATTIL HOUSE, KURUVATOOR P.O VALLAPUZHA,| ||PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679336| |4|KUNJUMOIDHEEN C.T,| ||AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. HAMSA,| ||CHETTIYARTHODI HOUSE, KURUVATOOR P.O VALLAPUZHA,| ||PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-, PIN - 679336| |5|MOIDHEEN| ||AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. KUNJALAVI,| ||SANKARATHODI HOUSE, KURUVATOOR P.O VALLAPUZHA,| ||PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-, PIN - 679336| |6|MUHAMMED NASEER C.T,| ||AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. MOHAMMEDKUTTY,| ||CHETTIYARTHODI HOUSE, KURUVATOOR P.O VALLAPUZHA,| ||PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-, PIN - 679336| |7|YOUSAF M.A| ||AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. MOIDHEEN,| ||MADATHIL HOUSE, KURUVATOOR P.O VALLAPUZHA,| ||PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679336| 3 Crl.M.C No.5078 of 2022 8 KUNHIMANI @ HANEEFA AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. KHADAR, CHETTIYARTHODI HOUSE, KURUVATOOR P.O VALLAPUZHA, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679336 BY ADV P.JAYARAM 0 ADVSREEJA V-PP **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** 4 Crl.M.C No.5078 of 2022 ## **O R D E R** Petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 to 8 in Crime No.435/2021 of Shornur Police Station which is now pending as C.C 453/2021 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ottapalam. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 506(1) read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case is that, on 08.07.2021 at 9.00 p.m., the petitioners formed into an unlawful assembly and attacked respondents 2 to 8 with dangerous weapons, thereby causing injuries to them. Annexure-A1 is the FIR and AnnexureA2 is the final report submitted by the Police. This Crl.MC is filed for quashing all further proceedings pursuant thereto. 3. Heard Sri.K.R Paul, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt. Sreeja V, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and Sri. P.Jayaram, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 8. 5 Crl.M.C No.5078 of 2022 4. The prayer for quashing the above proceedings is sought for by the petitioners on the ground that, the dispute between the parties has been settled and to substantiate the same, the injured persons have sworn Annexures-A3 to A9 affidavits respectively. The aforesaid affidavits indicate that, the matter has been settled and the injured persons have no subsisting grievance against the petitioners herein. They also conveyed that they have no objection in quashing the proceedings against the petitioners herein. The learned counsel for the respondents Nos.2 to 8/injured persons also confirmed the same. The learned Public Prosecutor upon instructions submitted that the veracity of the settlement was verified by the Station House officer concerned and before the SHO also, the injured persons have reiterated that, they do not have any objection in quashing the proceedings as they have no subsisting grievance against the petitioners herein. 5. Going through the materials available on record, it is discernible that, the dispute is basically private in nature and on 6 Crl.M.C No.5078 of 2022 account of settlement arrived at between the parties, no purpose would be served if the proceedings against the petitioners herein were allowed to continue. In such circumstances, the chances of a successful prosecution are very bleak. Therefore, I am of the view that going by the decision in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [2012(4) KLT 108],** this is a fit case in which the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked. Accordingly, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-A2 final report in Crime No.435/2021 of Shornur Police Station and all further proceedings in C.C.No.453/2021 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ottapalam as against the petitioners are hereby quashed. Sd/- **ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A JUDGE** rpk 7 Crl.M.C No.5078 of 2022 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5078/2022** PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT AND FIRST INFORMATION STATEMENT IN CRIME NO. 435/2021 OF SHORNUR POLICE STATION Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT/CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO. 435/2021 OF SHORNUR POLICE STATION /C.C NO. 453/2021 ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, OTTAPALAM - Annexure A2(a) COPY OF THE LIST OF WITNESSES/MEMORANDUM OF EVIDENCE IN THE CASE DIARY/FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 435/2021 OF SHORNUR POLICE STATION - Annexure A3 AFFIDAVIT DATED 22.01.2022 SWORN TO AND EXECUTED BY MOIDHEEN, THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/2ND RESPONDENT - Annexure A4 AFFIDAVIT DATED 22.01.2022 SWORN TO AND EXECUTED BY ABDUL NASAR, THE INJURED/ 3RD RESPONDENT - Annexure A5 AFFIDAVIT DATED 22.01.2022 SWORN TO AND EXECUTED BY KUNJUMOIDHEEN, THE INJURED/ 4TH RESPONDENT - Annexure A6 AFFIDAVIT DATED 22.01.2022 SWORN TO AND EXECUTED BY MOIDHEEN, THE INJURED/ 5TH RESPONDENT Annexure A7 AFFIDAVIT DATED 31.01.2022 SWORN TO AND EXECUTED BY MOHAMMED NASEER, THE INJURED/ 8 ## Crl.M.C No.5078 of 2022 6TH RESPONDENT Annexure A8 AFFIDAVIT DATED 18.10.2021 SWORN TO AND EXECUTED BY YOUSAF, THE INJURED/ 7TH RESPONDENT Annexure A9 AFFIDAVIT DATED 06.07.2022 SWORN TO AND EXECUTED BY KUNHIMANI @ HANEEFA, THE INJURED/ 8TH RESPONDENT