High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-10-21Quashed; petition allowed; proceedings quashed.

Thaslim C.Y and Ramsheer @ Misbabudeen v. The State of Kerala and Niyas C.K.

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C.No. 6353 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 stands allowed. Annexure-A2 final report and all proceedings in CC 2683/2013 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kasaragod are quashed.
Final Disposition: Quashed; petition allowed; proceedings quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Thaslim C.Y
Ramsheer @ Misbabudeen

Respondents

The State of Kerala
Niyas C.K.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. T. Madhu

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Amjad Ali (Public Prosecutor)
• Sri. Subash Bozz V.M

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court (Ernakulam) petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash CC 2683/2013 before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kasaragod. Accused No.1 Thaslim C.Y. and Accused No.2 Ramsheer @ Misbabudeen are charged with offences under IPC sections 341 (wrongful restraint), 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt), 506(ii) (criminal intimidation), and 427 read with 34 IPC for an incident on 12.9.2011 at 11:45 pm, allegedly involving injuries to the 2nd respondent, who is the petitioners’ half-brother. The petition relies on a private settlement with the 2nd respondent, arguing continued litigation would be oppressive and futile. The State’s counsel reserved his position, noting 482 powers should not be invoked indiscriminately, though no other cases are reported against the petitioners. The court cites Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) for the proposition that 482 can be exercised in cases of private settlement with a civil flavour, Narinder Singh and Rajesh Kamath guidelines are also referenced. After considering the circumstances, including the non-grave nature of the offence and the settlement reducing the likelihood of conviction, the court held that quashing is justified. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and Annexure-A2 final report and related proceedings are quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 CrPCSections 341, 326, 506(ii), 427 read with Section 34 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Gian Singh doctrine: Quashing under Section 482 can be based on settlements in cases with civil flavour; not extend to crimes against society.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab – guidelines for exercise of 482 in settlement situations.
Rajesh Kamath J. and Others v. Mohana Kurup and Others – guidelines on settlement-based quashing.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that Section 482 CrPC empowers the High Court to quash criminal proceedings where there is a settlement between private parties and the dispute is private in nature; continuing proceedings would be oppressive and futile given the private nature of the dispute and the lack of a grave offence. The private settlement with the injured party, who is their half-brother, removes subsisting grievance and reduces the likelihood of conviction, making quashing appropriate in light of civil flavour precedents like Gian Singh; Narinder Singh and Rajesh Kamath guidelines were cited.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent State’s counsel expressed reservations about invoking 482 solely on the basis of a settlement, noting that the power should not be used indiscriminately; the 2nd respondent’s counsel stated there was no subsisting grievance, but the moral and public interest considerations require careful use of 482. The absence of grave offences and the private nature of the dispute were weighed against the need to protect public interest.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another	2012 (10)SCC 303	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that Section 482 power can be exercised on settlement in cases with civil flavour.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	2014 (6) SCC 466	Mentioned Only	Mentioned as providing guidelines; not explicitly applied in full in the judgment.
Rajesh Kamath J. and Others v. Mohana Kurup and Others	AIR 2016 SC 2452	Mentioned Only	Cited as part of guidance on settlement-based quashing; not the sole basis of decision.

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 Thaslim C.Y and Ramsheer @ Misbabudeen v. The State of Kerala and Niyas C.K. 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. 6353 of 2016 () --------------------------CC 2683/2013 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KASARAGOD** **-----** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2.:** **---------------------------------** ## **1. THASLIM C.Y** **AGED 28 YEARS, S/O C.K.YOUSUF,** **RESIDING AT PALLANGOD, ADHUR VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** ## **2. RAMSHEER @ MISBABUDHEEN,** **AGED 31 YEARS, S/O C.K. YOUSUF, RESIDING AT PALLANGOD, ADHUR VILLAGE AND POST, KASARGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU** **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE.:** **---------------------** ## **1. THE STATE OF KERALA** - **THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ADHUR POLICE STATION- KASARAGOD DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.** ## **2. NIYAS C.K** - **S/O C.K. YOUSUF, AGED 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT PADAYATHADAKA HOUSE, ADHUR VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.671543.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI R2 BY ADV. SRI.SUBASH BOZZ V.M** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **bp** ## **Crl.MC.No. 6353 of 2016 () ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** ## **-----------------------** **ANNEXURE A1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.347/2011 OF ADHUR POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2: THE TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.347/2011 OF ADHUR POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A3: THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 21.7.2016 SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A4: THE TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE MEMO OF EVIDENCE IN CRIME NO.347/2011 OF ADHUR POLICE STATION.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** ## **bp** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V., J.** ------------------------------------------ ## **Crl.M.C. No.6353 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 C.C.No.2683 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Kasaragod. In the said case, they stand indicted for offences punishable under Sections 341, 326 and 506(ii), 427 read with Section 34 of the IPC. - 2.The prosecution allegation is that on 12.9.2011 at 11.45 p.m., the petitioners herein are alleged to have wrongfully restrained the 2[nd] respondent and thereafter assaulted him with an iron rod causing injuries. It is further alleged ## **Crl.M.C. No.6353 of 2016** **-2-** that the petitioners had committed mischief and caused damage to the tune of Rs.12,000/- to the 2[nd] respondent. - 3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the 2[nd] respondent and also the learned Public Prosecutor. - 4.It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the - 2[nd] respondent that he is the half brother of the petitioners and that he has no subsisting grievance as against them. - 5.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. - 6.In **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another** [2012 (10)SCC 303], the Apex Court has crystalised the position in respect of the powers vested in the High Court under **Crl.M.C. No.6353 of 2016** **-3-** 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, particularly offences arising from commercial, financial, **Crl.M.C. No.6353 of 2016** **-4-** 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]. 7.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.6353 of 2016** **-5-** respondent to great oppression and prejudice. 8.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-A2 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.C. No. 2683 of 2013 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kasaragod are quashed. **Sd/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V. JUDGE** Ps/22/10/16 # **Crl.M.C. No.6353 of 2016 -6-**