Siraj v. Sub Inspector of Police (Crime No. 288/2016), Valayam Police Station, Kozhikode District

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
Judgment Date: 2016-11-25
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is allowed; FIR in Crime No. 288/2016 and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners are quashed.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; FIR No. 288/2016 and all proceedings against petitioners quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Siraj
Vazha Parambath Hameed
Jamsheer Puthorath
Ameer

Respondents

Sub Inspector of Police, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Moossa S/o Abdulla-Haji, aged 56 years

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Zubair Pulikool
• Sri. K. Lal Mohan

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor, Sri. T.R. Renjith
• Adv. A.P. Rufaja

Case Synopsis & Summary

This criminal miscellaneous case (Crl.MC No. 7094 of 2016) before the High Court of Kerala arises under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings in Crime No. 288/2016 of Valayam Police Station, Kozhikode. The petitioners, accused Nos. 1 to 4, are alleged to have, on 12 June 2016 at about 9:30 pm, acted in furtherance of a common intention to restrain and assault the 2nd respondent with sticks, resulting in injuries. The offences alleged are under IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326 read with 149. The petition contends that the dispute is personal and has been amicably resolved, and continuation of the proceedings would be an abuse of process and would not serve public peace; quashing would promote peace and ends of justice. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about invoking the extraordinary powers, arguing against quashing. The Court relied on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, to hold that where there is a settlement between victim and wrongdoer, and continuing proceedings would be unfair or contrary to justice, the High Court can quash the case. After evaluating the circumstances, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and all proceedings against the petitioners, noting that such quashing aligns with ends of justice and prevents waste of time.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal ProcedureIPC sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326 read with 149

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ends of justice
Abuse of process of law
Amicable settlement as a basis to quash proceedings

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petition seeks quashing under Section 482 CrPC on the ground of amicable settlement, arguing that the dispute is personal, ends of justice would be served by termination, and continuation would amount to abuse of process; no collective public interest would be served by continuing the prosecution.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents acknowledge the amicable settlement but the Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about invoking extraordinary powers and contended that quashing is not warranted in such cases; the court is urged to ensure ends of justice and prevent abuse of process while considering the appropriate approach.

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 settlement exists if continuation would be unfair or contrary to justice, serving ends of justice.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	(2014) 6 SCC 466	Positive	Apex Court reiterates that when parties settle, the High Court may quash to secure ends of justice and prevent abuse of process.

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 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/4TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938** ## **Crl.MC.No. 7094 of 2016 ()** ## **--------------------------CRIME NO. 288/2016 OF VALAYAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. .....** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4:** **------------------------------------------------** **1. SIRAJ, S/O.MOIDU, AGED 36 YEARS, KALLIPOYIL HOUSE, VELLIYODU AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **2. VAZHA PARAMBATH HAMEED,** - **S/O.AMMAD, AGED 42 YEARS, KODIYUOORA, VELLIYODU AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **3. JAMSHEER PUTHORATH, S/O.ALIKUTTY, AGED 22 YEARS, KODIYUOORA P.O., VELLIYODU AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **4. AMEER,** - **S/O.HAMEED , AGED 29 YEARS, NADUKKANDY PARAMBATH, KODIYUOORA P.O., VELLIYODU AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL, SRI.K.LAL MOHAN.** ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:** **----------------------------------------------** **1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.** ## **Crl.MC.No. 7094 of 2016** **2. MOOSSA, S/O.ABDULLA-HAJI, AGED 56 YEARS, VAZHAYIL HOUSE, THAVOTTU MUKKU, P.O. VANIMEL, VANIMEL AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, PIN-673 101.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.R. RENJITH. R2 BY ADV. SMT.A.P.RUFAIJA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** rs. ## **Crl.MC.No. 7094 of 2016** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-** **ANNEXURE 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR WITH F1 STATEMENT IN CRIME NUMBER 288/2016 OF VALAYAM POLICE STATION, ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF THE DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT/2ND RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** rs. ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J** **---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.7094 of 2016** **----------------------------------------Dated this the 25[th] day of November, 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 are accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.288 of 2016 of Valyam Police Station registered at the instance of the 2[nd] respondent herein alleging offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326 read with 149 of the IPC. - 3.The prosecution allegation is that on 12.6.2016 at 9.30 p.m., the petitioners in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained the 2[nd] respondent herein 2 Crl.M.C.7094/2016 and thereafter assaulted him with sticks causing injuries. - 4.Heard the submissions advanced. - 5.The learned counsel appearing for the party 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 his 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.7094/2016 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.7094/2016 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 invoking its extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of Crl.M.C.7094/2016 5 the Code to quash the proceedings. In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-I FIR in Crime No.288 of 2016 of Valyam Police station and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners are quashed. **Sd/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE** vps