High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-10-21Petition allowed; proceedings quashed against p...

Thanooj @ Vava, Muhammad Najmudeen @ Rafi, Shemeer, Aseem @ Podimon, Anvar Sadiq v. State of Kerala and Muhammad Said

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No. 6354 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
Judgment Date: 2016-10-21
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is allowed; Annexure-A1 final report and all proceedings in SC No. 932 of 2014 are quashed against the petitioners.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; proceedings quashed against petitioners.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Thanooj @ Vava
Muhammad Najmudeen @ Rafi
Shemeer
Aseem @ Podimon
Anvar Sadiq

Respondents

State of Kerala
Muhammad Said

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Smt. Asha Elizabeth Mathew

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Rinny Stephen Chamapparampil
• Sri. T.R. Renjit, Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court of Kerala, in Crl.M.C. No. 6354 of 2016, applied its extraordinary powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings pending as SC No. 932 of 2014 before the Assistant Sessions Court, Chengannur. The petitioners—Thanooj @ Vava, Muhammad Najmudeen @ Rafi, Shemeer, Aseem @ Podimon, and Anvar Sadiq—were indicted for offences under IPC Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 341, and 308 r/w 34, based on an alleged unlawful assembly and assault on the de facto complainant on 14.11.2012. The 2nd respondent, Muhammad Said, the de facto complainant, appeared and filed Annexure-A2 expressing that he does not wish the criminal proceedings to continue, and a settlement had been reached between the parties. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about invoking 482 in such matters, though no other cases against the petitioners were reported. The court relied on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab to acknowledge that 482 can be invoked on settlements in cases with civil flavour, and that such power is not strictly limited to Section 320 CrPC. The judge found that the offences are not grave, the likelihood of conviction is remote, and continuing proceedings would oppress the parties. Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the proceedings in SC No. 932/2014 were quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)Section 320 CrPCIPC Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 341, 308 read with 34

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Power under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to quash proceedings based on settlements/compromise between private parties
The power is not limited to quashing within the ambit of Section 320 CrPC
Proceedings can be quashed in cases with overwhelming civil flavour where the dispute has been mutually resolved
Quashing should not be extended to crimes against society
Case law guidelines from Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Rajesh Kamath J. and Others v. Mohana Kurup and Others guide settlement-based quashing

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that a settlement between the parties warrants invocation of the extraordinary powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings. They argue that the offences, though listed under multiple IPC sections, do not portray grave or societal harm, and the respondent has consented to quashing via Annexure-A2. They rely on Gian Singh and Narinder Singh to show that quashing can be sanctioned where disputes are resolved privately and where the case has civil flavour, thereby avoiding oppression and harassment caused by continued proceedings.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor expresses reservations about using 482 CrPC in such a case, contending that quashing solely on the basis of a private settlement is not ordinarily warranted, though there are no other reported cases against the petitioners. However, he does not oppose the petition outright and acknowledges the absence of prior precedents against the petitioners.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another	(2012) 10 SCC 303	Positive	Cited to affirm that 482 CrPC powers extend beyond Section 320 and may be exercised in cases with settlements between private parties.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	2014 (6) SCC 466	Positive	Cited for guidelines on quashing based on settlements and civil flavour of disputes.
Rajesh Kamath J. and Others v. Mohana Kurup and Others	AIR 2016 SC 2452	Positive	Cited for additional guidance on settlement-based quashing under 482 CrPC.

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 Thanooj @ Vava, Muhammad Najmudeen @ Rafi, Shemeer, Aseem @ Podimon, Anvar Sadiq v. State of Kerala and Muhammad Said 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 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/29TH ASWINA, 1938 Crl.MC.No. 6354 of 2016 () --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 932/2014 of SUB COURT, CHENGANNUR DATED CRIME NO. 469/2013 OF VENMANI POLICE STATION , ALAPPUZHA PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED: --------------------- 1. THANOOJ @ VAVA AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.NISAMUDHEEN, RASHID MANSIL, WARD NO.X, CHERUVALLOOR MURI, CHERIYANADU VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-689 511. 2. MUHAMMAD NAJMUDHEEN @RAFI AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.KUNJUMON, NEJUMA MANSIL, WARD NO.X, CHERUVALLOOR MURI, CHERIYANADU VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-689 511. 3. SHEMEER AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.KABEER, ELAVUM MOOTTIL, WARD NO.X, CHERUVALLOOR MURI, CHERIYANADU VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-689 511. 4. ASEEM @ PODIMON AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.ABDHULKHADHAR, VATTAKUZHI MELETHIL, WARD NO.X, CHERUVALLOOR MURI, CHERIYANADU VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-689 511. 5. ANVAR SADIQ AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.KASIM PILLAI, MALAYIL KIZHAKETHIL HOUSE, WARD NO.X, CHERUVALLOOR MURI, CHERIYANADU VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-689 511. BY ADV. SMT.ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW CONTD... **==> picture [23 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** Crl.MC.No. 6354 of 2016 () --------------------------- RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. MUHAMMAD SAID AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.SHOUKKATH ALI, VALIAPARAMPIL THEKKETHIL HOUSE, CHERUVALLOOR MURI, CHERIYANADU VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.678 001 R2 BY ADV. SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.T.R.RENJIT THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CONTD... :2: Crl.MC.No. 6354 of 2016 () --------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- ANNEXURE A1 : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE/FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.469/2013 OF VENMANI POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2 : THE NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL ----------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE SKS ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J.** **---------------------------------Crl. M.C. No. 6354 of 2016 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 21[st] day of October, 2016** ## **O R D E R** - 1.This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Code') has been preferred by the petitioners herein for quashing the proceedings pending against them as S.C.No. 932 of 2014 of Assistant Sessions Court, Chengannur. In the said case, they stand indicted for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 341, 308 r/w 34 of the IPC. The 2[nd] respondent is the de facto complainant. - 2.The crux of the prosecution allegation is that, on 14.11.2012 at 2.30 p.m, the petitioners had formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained the the 2[nd] respondent and thereafter assaulted him weapons causing injuries. Crl.M.C. No. 6354 of 2016 -2- - 3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. - 4.The 2[nd] respondent has entered appearance through his counsel and has filed Annexure-A2 affidavit, wherein he has stated that he does not wish that the criminal proceedings against the petitioners should continue. - 5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, this Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings. - 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.In **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another** [2012 Crl.M.C. No. 6354 of 2016 -3- (10)SCC 303], the Apex Court has crystalised the position in respect of the powers vested in the High Court under S.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to quash criminal proceedings. It was held that the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is not limited to quashing proceedings within the ambit and scope of Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The three - Judge Bench in the above case, clearly expounded, that quashing of criminal proceedings under S.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, could also be based on settlements between private parties, and could also on a compromise between the offender and the victim. Only that, the above power did not extend to crimes against the society. It is also relevant to mention, that the jurisdiction vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for quashing criminal proceedings, was held to be exercisable in criminal cases having an overwhelming and predominatingly civil flavour, Crl.M.C. No. 6354 of 2016 -4- particularly offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership, or such like transactions. In all such cases, the parties should have resolved their entire dispute by themselves, mutually. Further, guidelines were issued by the Apex Court in **Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab** [2014 (6) SCC 466] and recently in **Rajesh Kamath J. and Others v. Mohana Kurup and Others** [AIR 2016 SC 2452]. 8.I have considered the rival submissions and I have gone through the materials on record. 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. More over, when the respondent No.2 has settled the matter, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and the continuation of the criminal case against the petitioners would be a futile exercise. It would also put the petitioners and the 2[nd] Crl.M.C. No. 6354 of 2016 -5- respondent to great oppression and prejudice. 9.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. Annexure-A1 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as S.C. No. 932 of 2014 of Assistant Sessions Court, Chengannur are quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE** SKS //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE