Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgePetition allowed; proceedings quashed; victims/...

Yousuf and others v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No. 6915 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
Judgment Date
2016-11-15
Court Decision / Holding
The petition is allowed; the final report and all proceedings in S.C. No. 113 of 2014 against the petitioners are quashed.
Final Disposition
Petition allowed; proceedings quashed; victims/accused settlement recognised; final report quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Yousuf
  • Muhammed Mathath @ Mayami
  • Moosa
  • Moosa
  • Yousuf
  • Yousuf
  • Mahammood
  • Noushad
  • Nasar

Respondents

  • State of Kerala
  • Yakoob P.P.
  • Rifayath
  • Abdul Latheef
  • Mahammood
  • Aslam
  • Azeez
  • Mathath Aboobacker @ Abbas

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri K. Siju
  • • Smt. Seetha

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri Shanavas Nalakath Randupurayil
  • • Public Prosecutor Sri Amjad Ali

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case (Crl.M.C. No. 6915 of 2016) under section 482 Cr.P.C., filed by nine petitioners/accused against the State and de facto complainants in crime No. 976/2012 (SC 113 of 2014) before the Principal Assistant Sessions Court, Thalassery. The petition seeks quashing of the ongoing criminal proceedings on the ground that the parties have amicably resolved their differences; the dispute is personal and would not affect public peace, and continuing proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law and fail to serve ends of justice. The respondents (victims) support quashing, placing affidavits of settlement, while the Public Prosecutor expresses reservations about invoking extraordinary powers, though no other cases are reported against the petitioners. The judge refers to Supreme Court precedents Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, to emphasize that in appropriate cases, where there is an amicable settlement and continuation would be unfair or abuse of process, quashing can be warranted to secure ends of justice and prevent abuse of process. After considering all circumstances, the court authorizes quashing of the final report and all proceedings in S.C. No. 113 of 2014, thereby allowing the petition. The order reflects a preference for peace and the ends of justice over continued prosecution in a settled dispute.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 Cr.P.C.Section 143 IPCSection 147 IPCSection 148 IPCSection 341 IPCSection 323 IPCSection 294(b) IPCSection 506(ii) IPCSection 308 read with Section 149 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Ends of justice
  • Abuse of process of law
  • Amicable settlement can justify quashing of criminal proceedings (as recognized in Gian Singh and Narinder Singh)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners move under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of the criminal proceedings in SC 113/2014 on account of an amicable settlement between the parties. They contend the dispute is personal, the settlement is genuine, and continuing the prosecution would be an unnecessary waste of time and would amount to abuse of process of law, failing to serve ends of justice.

Contentions of Respondents

The victims/ respondents support quashing in the interest of peace and harmony, arguing that the dispute is not grave and the settlement is genuine; the fundamental concern is to secure ends of justice and prevent abuse of process, though the Public Prosecutor expresses initial reservations about invoking extraordinary powers.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab2012 (10) SCC 303PositiveApex Court held that High Courts may quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases where there is an amicable settlement between the victim and the accused, to secure ends of justice and prevent abuse of process.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab2014 (6) SCC 466PositiveCase reiterates that upon settlement, the guiding factors are ends of justice and preventing abuse of process; supports quashing where appropriate.

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 Yousuf and others v. State of Kerala 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** ## **TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/24TH KARTHIKA, 1938** ## **Crl.MC.No. 6915 of 2016 () ---------------------------** ## **AGAINST SC 113/2014 of PRL. ASST.S.C.,THALASSERY CRIME NO. 976/2012 OF KOLAVALLOOR POLICE STATION , KANNUR** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED :** ## **----------------------** ## **1. YOUSUF** **AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. ABU, NELLIYULLATHIL HOUSE, THRIPPANGOTTOOR AMSOM, CENTRE POYILOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **2. MUHAMMED MATHATH @ MAYAMI** **AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. SOOPPY, MATTATHU HOUSE, THRIPPANGOTTOOR AMSOM, POYILOOR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.** ## **3. MOOSA** **AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. AHAMMED, PUTHALATHU HOUSE, THRIPPANGOTTOOR AMSOM, CENTRAL POYILOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT.** ## **4. MOOSA** **AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. IBRAHIM, NADUKANDIYIL HOUSE, THRIPPANGOTTOOR AMSOM, CENTRAL POYILOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **5. YOUSUF** **AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. MOOSA, NADUKANDIYIL HOUSE, THRIPPANGOTTOOR AMSOM, CENTRAL POYILOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **6. YOUSUF** **AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. IBRAHIM, NADUKANDIYIL HOUSE, THRIPPANGOTTOOR AMSOM, CENTRAL POYILOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **7. MAHAMMOOD** **AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. IBRAHIM, NADUKANDIYIL HOUSE, THRIPPANGOTTOOR AMSOM, CENTRAL POYILOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **8. NOUSHAD** **AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. MOOSA, KOLOTHU HOUSE, THRIPPANGOTTOOR AMSOM, CENTRAL POYILOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **9. NASAR AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. ABUBACKER, PUTHUPRANTAVIDA HOUSE, THRIPPANGOTTOOR AMSOM, CENTRAL POYILOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADVS.SRI.K.SIJU SMT.S.SEETHA** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE &DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT :** **--------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA** **REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLAVALLOOR POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.** ## **2. YAKOOB P.P.** - **AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. MOOSA, PEEDIKAYULLA PARAMBATH HOUSE, CENTRAL POYILOOR, POYILOOR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.670693** ## **3. RIFAYATH** - **AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. YAKOOB, PEEDIKAYULLA PARAMBATH HOUSE, CENTRAL POYILOOR, POYILOOR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.670693** ## **4. ABDUL LATHEEF** - **AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. MAMMI HAJI, POTTENTAVIDA HOUSE, CENTRAL POYILOOR, POYILOOR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.670693** ## **5. MAHAMMOOD** - **AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. PAKRAN, KANNIPOYIL HOUSE, CENTRAL POYILOOR, POYILOOR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.670693** ## **6. ASLAM** - **AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. IBRAHIM HAJI, KOLANGARATH HOUSE, CENTRAL POYILOOR, POYILOOR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.670693** ## **7. AZEEZ** - **AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. AHAMMED HAJI, KUTTIYIL HOUSE, CENTRAL POYILOOR, POYILOOR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.673693** **8. MATHATH ABOOBACKER @ ABBAS AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. AHAMMED, MATHATH HOUSE, CENTRAL POYILOOR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.670693** **R2-8 BY ADV. SRI.SHANAVAS NALAKATH RANDUPURAYIL R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **Crl.MC.No. 6915 of 2016 () ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES** ## **-----------------------** **ANNEXURE 1 COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.976/2012 OF KOLAVALLOOR POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE 2 COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.976/2012 OF KOLAVALLOOR POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE 3 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30.6.2016 REGARDING THE COMPROMISE.** **ANNEXURE 4 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 23.8.2016 REGARDING THE COMPROMISE. ANNEXURE 5 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 20.9.2016 REGARDING THE COMPROMISE. ANNEXURE 6 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 30.6.2016 REGARDING THE COMPROMISE. ANNEXURE 7 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 23.8.2016 REGARDING THE COMPROMISE. ANNEXURE 8 THE AFFIDAVTI SWORN BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT DATED 20.9.2016 REGARDING THE COMPROMISE. ANNEXURE 9 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT DATED 30.6.2016 REGARDING THE COMPROMISE. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL -----------------------** **TRUE COPY** **P.A. TO JUDGE.** **kp** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## Crl.M.C. No. 6915 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 15[th] November, 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **ORDER** - 1.This petition is filed under Section 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 in S.C.No.113 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Court, Thalassery. They stand indicted for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 294(b), 506(ii) and 308 read with Section 149 of the IPC. Respondents 2 to 8 are the victims. - 3.The crux of the prosecution allegation is that on 14.12.2012 at about 1.45 p.m, the petitioners herein formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object wrongfully restrained Crl.M.C. No.6915 of 2016 -2- respondents 2 to 8 and assaulted them with weapons causing injuries. - 4.Heard the submissions advanced. - 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 their 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 Crl.M.C. No.6915 of 2016 -3- against the petitioners. 7.I have considered the submissions. 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 Crl.M.C. No.6915 of 2016 -4- ## 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 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 Crl.M.C. No.6915 of 2016 -5- 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. Annexure-2 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as S.C.No.113 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Court, Thalassery are quashed. **Sd/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE** kp/-16.11.16