Sulfath, Mohammed and Salma v. State of Kerala and others

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date: 2017-01-05
Court Decision / Holding: The High Court, after considering the submissions and relevant authorities, holds that quashing is justified under Section 482 CrPC. The FIR No.1909/2016 and all proceedings are quashed, and the Crl.M.C. petition is allowed.
Final Disposition: FIR and proceedings quashed; petition allowed; ends of justice served by amicable settlement.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sulfath, W/o Anshad
Mohammed, S/o Hassan
Salma, W/o Mohammed

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Sub Inspector of Police, Thodupuzha Police Station, Iddu District
Asiya Aliyar, W/o Aliyar
Ansiya, W/o Shihab
Shabina, D/o Aliyar

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Binitha James

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor SMT. M.K. Pushpalatha
• Sri R. Arun

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case under Section 482 CrPC, filed by Sulfath, Mohammed and Salma seeking to quash Crime No.1909/2016 registered at Thodupuzha Police Station for offences under IPC sections 294(b), 323, 324, 427, 452 read with 34. The petition asserts that the dispute arose between near relatives and has been amicably resolved, with the accused and respondents now living in harmony; continuing with the criminal proceedings would be unfair and amount to abuse of process, and quashing would secure ends of justice. The respondents 3 to 5 filed affidavits claiming settlement; the State's Public Prosecutor expressed reservations but did not deny the amicable settlement. The court recalls binding Supreme Court decisions Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 recognizing that in suitable cases, the High Court may quash criminal proceedings where parties have resolved their dispute, so as to promote peace and fairness. After weighing the facts, the judge notes the offences are not grave nor likely to impact public order and that continued prosecution would undermine ends of justice. The court quashes the FIR and all proceedings against the petitioners, allowing the Crl.M.C. petition, with Annexure A1 FIR nullified.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal ProcedureIPC: Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 427, 452 read with 34

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ends of justice
Abuse of process of law
Amicable settlement/compromise between victim and wrongdoer as basis to quash criminal proceedings

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that the parties are close relatives and the dispute has been amicably resolved. The allegations are private in nature, and continuing prosecution would undermine peace and the ends of justice. They urge the High Court to exercise its extraordinary inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents rely on affidavits showing settlement but suggest the need for caution; the Public Prosecutor initially expressed reservations about quashing solely on compromise, emphasizing that the offence, though not grave, should be weighed against the interest of justice. Overall, they advocate for ending the proceedings in light of the amicable settlement to promote peace.

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 based on amicable settlements when it serves ends of justice and does not amount to abuse of process.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	2014 (6) SCC 466	Positive	Apex Court reiterated that settlement guides the court to secure ends of justice and prevent abuse of process; supports quashing in appropriate cases.

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** **THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/15TH POUSHA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 8712 of 2016** **------------------------** **CRIME NO. 1909/2016 OF THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION, IDUKKI** **....** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:** **---------------------** **1. SULFATH, W/O.ANSHAD, AGED 26 YEARS, MUTTATHUKUNNEL HOUSE, SASTHAMPARA KARA, KARIKODE VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.** **2. MOHAMMED, S/O.HASSAN, AGED 55 YEARS, MUTTATHUKUNNEL HOUSE, SASTHAMPARA KARA, KARIKODE VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.** **3. SALMA, W/O. MOHAMMED, AGED 48 YEARS, MUTTATHUKUNNEL HOUSE, SASTHAMPARA KARA, KARIKODE VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV. SMT.BINITHA JAMES** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & COMPLAINANTS:** **-----------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.** **2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,** - **THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 584.** **3. ASIYA ALIYAR, W/O.ALIYAR,** - **AGED 49 YEARS, MUTTATHUKUNNEL HOUSE, SASTHAMPARA KARA, KARIKODE VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 584.** **msv/** **-2-** **-2-** ## **Crl.MC.No. 8712 of 2016** **------------------------** **4. ANSIYA, W/O.SHIHAB,** **AGED 23 YEARS, MUTTATHUKUNNEL HOUSE, SASTHAMPARA KARA, KARIKODE VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 584.** **5. SHABINA, D/O.ALIYAR,** **AGED 22 YEARS, MUTTATHUKUNNEL HOUSE, SASTHAMPARA KARA, KARIKODE VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 584.** **R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA R3-R5 BY ADV. SRI.R.ARUN** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **msv/** **Crl.MC.No. 8712 of 2016 ------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:** **-------------------------** - **A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1909/2016 OF THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION.** - **A2 AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. A3 AFFIDAVIT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. A4 AFFIDAVIT OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURE ----------------------NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S.TO JUDGE** **msv/** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.8712 of 2016** **----------------------------------------Dated this the 5th day of January, 2017** ## **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 3 in Crime No.1909 of 2016 of Thodupuzha Police Station registered at the instance of the 3[rd] respondent herein alleging offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 427, 452 read with 34 of the IPC. - 3.The petitioners herein and the respondents 3 to 5 are near relatives. Based on the information furnished by the 3[rd] respondent, Annexure-A1 crime was registered. The allegation is that the petitioners herein in furtherance of their common intention caused bodily injuries to the Crl.M.C.8712/2016 2 respondents 3 to 5 and also took away a gold chain worth Rs.25,000/-. - 4.It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that Crime No.1788 of 2016 of Thodupuzha Police Station was registered at the instance of the 3[rd] respondent in respect of an incident involving the son of the 1[st] petitioner. It is submitted that all the disputes have been settled and the parties are living in peace and harmony. - 5.The learned counsel appearing for the party respondents submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. Attention of this Court is invited to the affidavits filed by them 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 Crl.M.C.8712/2016 3 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. - 8.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_ Crl.M.C.8712/2016 4 _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 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 Crl.M.C.8712/2016 5 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 the Code to quash the proceedings. In the result, this petition will stand allowed. AnnexureA1 FIR in Crime No.1909 of 2016 of Thodupuzha Police Station and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners are quashed. **JUDGE** vps