High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-02-04Crl.M.C. allowed; Annexure A Final Report quash...

Yousaf S/o Muhammed; Hamsa S/o Muhammed; Shafi S/o Rasheed v. State of Kerala & Others

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C.No.4886/2021

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. Kauser Edappagath
Judgment Date: 2022-02-04
Court Decision / Holding: Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure A Final Report in Crime No. 9/2014 of Perinthalmanna Police Station, now split up and refiled as S.C.No. 665/2018, stands quashed.
Final Disposition: Crl.M.C. allowed; Annexure A Final Report quashed; proceedings before SC/ST (POA) Act Court stand closed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Yousaf S/o Muhammed
Hamsa S/o Muhammed
Shafi S/o Rasheed

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, Kochi - 682 031
The Sub Inspector of Police, Perinthalmanna Police Station, Perinthalman, PIN - 679 322
Abdul Rasak aged 39 years S/o Abdul backer, Ongallur House, Paduvilkunnu, Arakkparamba Post, Malappuram District - 679 322 (CW1)
Aminakutty aged 69 years W/o Abdulbacker, Ongallur House, Paduvilkunnoo Arakkparamba Post, Malappuram District - 679 322 (CW2)
Abdusalam aged 37 years S/o Abdulbacker, Ongallur House, Paduvilkunnoo, Arakkparamba Post, Malappuram District - 679 322 (CW9)
Asanath aged 41 years D/o Abdulbacker, Ongallur House, Paduvilkunnoo, Arakkparamba Post, Malappuram District - 679 322 (CW7)
Yoonus aged 34 years S/o Abdulbacker, Ongallur House, Paduvilkunnoo, Arakkparamba Post, Malappuram District - 679 322 (CW8)
Ummu Kulsu aged 43 years D/o Abdulbacker, Ongallur House, Paduvilkunnoo, Arakkparamba Post, Malappuram District - 679 322 (CW6)
Shameera aged 29 years W/o Shamsudheen, Ongallur House, Paduvilkunnoo, Arakkparamba Post, Malappuram District - 679 322 (CW5)
Jameela aged 31 years D/o Abdulbacker, Ongallur House, Paduvilkunnoo, Arakkparamba Post, Malappuram District - 679 322 (CW4)
Jaseela aged 32 years D/o Abdulbacker, Ongallur House, Paduvilkunnoo, Arakkparamba Post, Malappuram District - 679 322 (CW10)
Sainul Abid aged 33 years S/o Abdulbacker, Ongallur House, Paduvilkunnoo, Arakkparamba Post, Malappuram District - 679 322 (CW11)
Saheer Anas aged 11 years S/o Abdulusalam, Ongallur House, Paduvilkunnoo, Arakkparamba Post, Malappuram District - 679 322 (CW12)
defacto complainant and injured represented by their counsel

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K.M. Sathyanath Menon
• Kavery S Thampi
• P. Arun Kumar (Moncompu)
• M.S. Sarun

Counsels for Respondents

• E. C. Ahamed Fazil
• M. P. Prasanth (PP)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a criminal miscellaneous case (Crl.M.C. No. 4886/2021) decided by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam on 4 February 2022 by a Single Judge, Dr. Kauser Edappagath. The petition seeks to quash Annexure A Final Report in Crime No. 9/2014 of the Perinthalmanna Police Station, which was split up and refiled as Special Case No. 665/2018 before the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Manjeri. The petitioners are accused Nos. 5, 10 and 18; the 3rd respondent is the de facto complainant, and respondents 4 to 13 are the injured. The offences alleged span IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 452, 427 and 308 read with section 149 IPC. The respondents appeared through counsel, and affidavits were filed. The core contention is that the entire dispute between the parties is private and has been amicably settled, with the de facto complainant deciding not to pursue the case. The Public Prosecutor informed the court that the matter was investigated and the de facto complainant affirmed settlement. Relying on Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, and Laxmi Narayan, the court held that a High Court can exercise its inherent powers under S.482 Cr.P.C to quash proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences if ends of justice and avoidance of abuse of process warrant it, especially after settlement. The petition was allowed and Annexure A Final Report quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

IPC Section 143IPC Section 147IPC Section 148IPC Section 324IPC Section 452IPC Section 427IPC Section 308 read with IPC Section 149IPC Section 149CrPC Section 482CrPC Section 320SC/ST (POA) Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)
Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others, 2014 (6) SCC 466
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others, 2019 (5) SCC 688
Ends of justice
Abuse of process of court
Quashing on settlement under S.482 CrPC despite bar under S.320 CrPC

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that the dispute is purely private and has been amicably settled by the accused and the de facto complainant, who has decided not to pursue the case. On instruction, the Public Prosecutor stated that the matter was investigated and the de facto complainant affirmed settlement. Relying on Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, and Laxmi Narayan, they argued that High Courts can exercise their inherent powers under S.482 Cr.P.C to quash proceedings in respect of non‑compoundable offences when there is a settlement and when ends of justice or prevention of abuse of process warrant such action, particularly where the offence is not injurious to public interest. They emphasized that the dispute is private and does not affect public harmony, and that quashing would avoid needlessly prolonging litigation, with no prejudice to any public interest.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that the matter involves a large number of accused and serious offences under IPC; even with settlement, the State must safeguard public interest and ensure accountability. They submitted that the investigation and potential trial are important to maintain public order and prevent possible re‑victimization, reasserting that quashing non‑compoundable offences based on private settlement could create perceptions of impunity. They noted that while the cited Supreme Court decisions support exercise of S.482 Cr.P.C in appropriate cases, distinctions may apply, and the balancing of ends of justice against public interest must be carefully assessed in the context of the SC/ST (POA) Act proceedings. They urged caution and proper safeguards in exercising power to quash.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)	Positive	Cited as authority for quashing proceedings on settlement, invoking ends of justice and avoidance of abuse of process, even when offences are non-compoundable.
Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others	[(2014) 6 SCC 466]	Positive	Used to support S.482 Cr.P.C power to quash non‑compoundable offences on settlement to serve ends of justice.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others	[(2019) 5 SCC 688]	Positive	Cited as modern authority aligning with the principle that settlement can justify quashing proceedings to prevent abuse and ensure ends of justice.

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 Yousaf S/o Muhammed; Hamsa S/o Muhammed; Shafi S/o Rasheed v. State of Kerala & 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 DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH FRIDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 15TH MAGHA, 1943 CRL.MC NO. 4886 OF 2021** **CRIME NO.9/2014 OF Perinthalmanna Police Station, Malappuram IN SC 665/2018 OF SPECIAL COURT SC/ST (POA), MANJERI PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.5, 10 & 18:** 1 YOUSAF S/O.MUHAMMED, PUTHAN PEEDIKA HOUSE, ARAKKUPARAMBA POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679 322. 2 HAMSA S/O.MUHAMMED, PUTHAN PEEDIKA HOUSE, ARAKKUPARAMBA POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679 322. 3 SHAFI S/O.RASHEED, PUTHAN PEEDIKA HOUSE, ARAKKUPARAMBA POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679 322. BY ADVS.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON KAVERY S THAMPI P.ARUN KUMAR (MONCOMPU) M.S.SARUN ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 031. Crl.M.C.No.4886/2021 ## -:2:- 2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION, PERINTHALMANNA, PIN - 679 322. 3 ABDUL RASAK AGED 39 YEARS S/O.ABOOBACKER, ONGALLUR HOUSE, PADUVILKUNNU, ARAKKPARAMBA POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 322 (CW1). 4 AMINAKUTTY AGED 69 YEARS W/O.ABOOBACKER, ONGALLUR HOUSE, PADUVILKUNNU, ARAKKPARAMBA POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 322. (CW2) 5 ABDUSALAM AGED 37 YEARS S/O.ABOOBACKER, ONGALLUR HOUSE, PADUVILKUNNU, ARAKKPARAMBA POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 322. (CW9) 6 ASANATH AGED 41 YEARS D/O.ABOOBACKER, ONGALLUR HOUSE, PADUVILKUNNU, ARAKKPARAMBA POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 322. (CW7) 7 YOONUS AGED 34 YEARS S/O.ABOOBACKER, ONGALLUR HOUSE, PADUVILKUNNU, ARAKKPARAMBA POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 322. (CW8) 8 UMMU KULSU AGED 43 YEARS D/O.ABOOBACKER, ONGALLUR HOUSE, PADUVILKUNNU, ARAKKPARAMBA POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 322. (CW6) Crl.M.C.No.4886/2021 -:3:- 9 SHAMEERA AGED 29 YEARS W/O.SHAMSUDHEEN, ONGALLUR HOUSE, PADUVILKUNNU, ARAKKPARAMBA POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 322. (CW5) 10 JAMEELA AGED 31 YEARS D/O.ABOOBACKER, ONGALLUR HOUSE, PADUVILKUNNU, ARAKKPARAMBA POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 322. (CW4) 11 JASEELA AGED 32 YEARS D/O.ABOOBACKER, ONGALLUR HOUSE, PADUVILKUNNU, ARAKKPARAMBA POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 322. (CW10) 12 SAINUL ABID AGED 33 YEARS S/O.ABOOBACKER, ONGALLUR HOUSE, PADUVILKUNNU, ARKKPARAMBA POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 322. (CW11) 13 SAHEER ANAS AGED 11 YEARS S/O.ABDUSALAM, ONGALLUR HOUSE, PADUVILKUNNU, ARAKKPARAMBA POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 322. (CW12), REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN ABDUSALAM. BY ADV E.C.AHAMED FAZIL SRI. M.P PRASANTH, PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.No.4886/2021 ## -:4:- ## O R D E R Dated this the 4th day of February, 2022 This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure A Final Report in Crime No. 9/2014 of Perinthalmanna Police Station which is now split up and refiled as S.C.No. 665/2018 on the files of the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Manjeri on the ground of settlement between the parties. 2. The petitioners are the accused Nos. 5, 10 and 18. The 3[rd] respondent is the defacto complainant and the respondents Nos. 4 to 13 are the injured. 3. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 452, 427 and 308 read with Section 149 of IPC. Annexure B judgment would show that the remaining accused were acquitted. 4. The respondent Nos. 3 to 13 entered appearance through counsel. Affidavits sworn in by them are also produced. 5. I have heard Smt. Kavery S. Thampi, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. E.C. Ahamed Fazil, the learned Crl.M.C.No.4886/2021 -:5:- counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 to 13 and Sri. M.P. Prasanth, the learned Public Prosecutor. 6. The averments in the petition as well as the affidavits sworn in by the respondent Nos. 3 to 13 would show that the entire dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the _de facto_ complainant has decided not to proceed with the crime further. The learned Prosecutor, on instruction, submits that the matter was enquired into through the investigating officer and a statement of the _de facto_ complainant was also recorded wherein he reported that the matter was amicably settled. 7. The Apex Court in _**Gian Singh v. State of Punjab**_ [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)], _**Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others**_ [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and in _**State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others**_ [(2019) 5 SCC 688] has held that the High Court invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C can quash criminal proceedings in relation to non compoundable offence where the parties have settled the matter between themselves notwithstanding the bar under S.320 of Cr.P.C. if it is warranted in the given facts and circumstances of the case or to Crl.M.C.No.4886/2021 ## -:6:- ensure ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court. 8. The dispute in the above case is purely personal in nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure A. The offences in question do not fall within the category of offences prohibited for compounding in terms of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in _**Gian Singh**_ (supra), _**Narinder Singh**_ (supra) and ## _**Laxmi Narayan**_ (supra). For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that no purpose will be served in proceeding with the matter further. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure A Final Report in Crime No. 9/2014 of Perinthalmanna Police Station which is now split up and refiled as S.C.No. 665/2018 on the files of the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Manjeri stands hereby quashed. Sd/- ## **DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH** ## **JUDGE** **kp True copy** P.A. To Judge Crl.M.C.No.4886/2021 ## -:7:- ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4886/2021** PETITIONER ANNEXURES - Annexure A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED IN CRIME NO.9/2014 OF PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION WHICH IS NOW PENDING AS S.C.NO.904/2016 SPECIAL COURT FOR SC/ST (POA) ACT, CASES, MANJERI. - Annexure B CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15/12/2017 IN S.C.NO.904/2016 ON THE FILES OF SPECIAL COURT FOR SC/ST (POA) ACT, CASES, MANJERI. - Annexure C TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF LATE MR.MUHAMMED ONGALLUR ISSUED BY THE VICE CONSULATE, CONSULATE GENERAL OF INDIA, JEDDAH, SAUDI ARABIA DATED 08/09/2020. - Annexure D TRUE COPY OF THE WITNESS MEMORANDUM IN CRIME NO.9/2014 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT NO.1, PERINTHALMANNA. - Annexure E AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 25/09/2021. - Annexure F AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 25/09/2021. - Annexure G AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 25/09/2021. - Annexure H AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 25/09/2021. Annexure I AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT DATED 25/09/2021. ## Crl.M.C.No.4886/2021 ## -:8:- Annexure J AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT DATED 25/09/2021. Annexure K AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 9TH RESPONDENT DATED 25/09/2021. Annexure L AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 10TH RESPONDENT DATED 25/09/2021. Annexure M AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 11TH RESPONDENT DATED 25/09/2021. Annexure N AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 12TH RESPONDENT DATED 25/09/2021. Annexure O AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 13TH RESPONDENT DATED 25/09/2021.