High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-12-22Quashed

Zaheem; Firos P.K; Jabir @ Jabid v. State of Kerala; Muhammed N.P.; Irshad A.K.

Case / Petition Number:CRL.MC.NO.5030 OF 2020; CRL.MC.NO.5022 OF 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: V.G. Arun
Judgment Date: 2020-12-22
Court Decision / Holding: The CRL.M.Cs are allowed. The proceedings in CP No. 41/2019 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery are quashed, as the dispute has been settled amicably and continuing would constitute an abuse of process under the authorities Madan Mohan Abbot and Gian Singh. The final order dated 22 December 2020 is clarified by including reference to SC No. 992 of 2019 on the files of the Principal Sub Court, Thalassery.
Final Disposition: Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Zaheem, aged 23 years S/O Najees, Kavungil House, Olichil, Peringathur, Kannur District - 670675
Firos P.K., aged 28 years S/O Late Hamsa, Pokkaravida House, Olichil, Peringathur, Kannur District - 670675
Jabir @ Jabid, aged 28 years S/O Hamza, Pithalantevida House, Valiyangadi Peedika, Chokli, Kannur District - 670675
Hanas, aged 26 years S/O Musthafa, Kunnot House (Asnas), Olichil, Peringathur, Kannur District - 670675
Adhil K, aged 25 years S/O Sunjalu, Thiruvangalath House, Olichil, Peringathur, Kannur District - 670675
Faisal A.K, aged 22 years S/O Nasar, Pokkaravida House, Olichil, Peringathur, Kannur District - 670675
Ramees P, aged 30 years S/O Abdhulla, Panangadichintevida (Rafeeq Manzil), Olichil, Peringathur, Kannur District - 670675
Nabeel K, aged 27 years S/O Kunjalu, Thiruvangalath House, Olichil, Peringathur, Kannur District - 670675

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Muhammed N.P., S/O Yousaf Haji, Punathil House, Kulavallur P.O, Kannur District
Irshad A.K., S/O Abubaker, Arayakandy House, Kadavathur P.O, Kannur District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• M.Muhammed Shafi

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor (Sreeja V.)
• T.Rasini

Case Synopsis & Summary

This petition seeks quashing of criminal proceedings arising from Crime No. 571/2018 of Kolavallur Police Station, Kannur, now pending as C.P. No. 41/2019 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery. The petitioners—accused nos. 4, 6 & 8 in CRL.M.C.5030/2020 (Zaheem, Firos P.K., Jabir alias Jabid)—and the companion CRL.M.C.5022/2020 petitioners (Hanas, Adhil K, Faisal A.K, Ramees P, Nabeel K) approach the High Court seeking to quash the ongoing proceedings on the basis that the dispute has been amicably settled with the de facto complainant and injured party, evidenced by affidavits (Annexures A2 and A3). The respondents include the State represented by the Public Prosecutor, and the private respondents Muhammed N.P. and Irshad A.K. The Public Prosecutor reports that the complainant and injured persons are abroad, and contact was made via their mother, who confirms settlement and lack of subsisting grievance. On evaluation, the court finds no public interest in continuing the proceedings; the affidavits and the settlement negate the likelihood of conviction, and continuing would amount to abuse of process per Madan Mohan Abbot and Gian Singh. Consequently, the Court allows the CRL.M.Cs and quashes CP 41/2019. The order, dated 22 December 2020, is later clarified to include SC No. 992/2019 in the relevant sentence.

Provisions of Law Cited

IPC 143IPC 147IPC 148IPC 341IPC 323IPC 324IPC 308IPC 149 (read with 308)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Abuse of process of court (doctrine)
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008) 4 SCC 582
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another (2012) 10 SCC 303

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants seek quashing on the ground that the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties, as evidenced by affidavits from the 2nd and 3rd respondents. They rely on the lack of subsisting grievance and the absence of public interest in continuing criminal proceedings where settlement exists and the likelihood of conviction is remote.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents, as represented by the Public Prosecutor and learned counsel, contend that the matter concerns offences of serious consequences; however, given the amicable settlement and absence of public interest in prosecution, the proceedings should be examined for quashing, but the court ultimately weighs the gravity of the offences along with the likelihood of conviction.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab	(2008) 4 SCC 582	Positive	Cited by the High Court to support quashing where a settlement exists and there is no public interest; demonstrates abuse of process in continuing proceedings.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another	(2012) 10 SCC 303	Positive	Cited as authority that settlement prevents continued prosecution and supports quashing where public interest does not require continuation.

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 Zaheem; Firos P.K; Jabir @ Jabid v. State of Kerala; Muhammed N.P.; Irshad A.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 V.G.ARUN** **TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 1ST POUSHA, 1942** **CRL.MC.NO.5030 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CP 41/2019 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ,THALASSERY** **CRIME NO.571/2018 OF KOLAVALLUR POLICE STATION , KANNUR** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS. 4, 6 & 8:** **1 ZAHEEM AGED 23 YEARS S/O. NAJEES, KAVUNGIL HOUSE, OLICHIL, PERINGATHUR, KANNUR DT 670 675 2 FIROS P.K, AGED 28 YEARS S/O. LATE HAMSA, POKKARAVIDA HOUSE, OLICHIL, PERINGATHUR, KANNUR DT 670 675 3 JABIR @ JABID, AGED 28 YEARS S/O. HAMSA, PITHALANTEVIDA HOUSE, VALIYANGADI PEEDIKA, CHOKLI, KANNUR DT 670 675** ## **BY ADV. SRI.M.MUHAMMED SHAFI** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031 2 MUHAMMED N.P. AGED 29 YEARS S/O. YOUAF HAJI, PUNATHIL HOUSE, KULAVALLUR P.O** CRL.M.C.NO.5030 & 5022 OF 2020 2 ## **KANNUR DT 670 676** **3 IRSHAD A.K. AGED 28 YEARS S/O. ABOOBAKER, ARAYAKANDY HOUSE, KADAVATHUR P.O, KANNUR DT 670 676** **R2-3 BY ADV. SMT.T.RASINI** **R1 BY SRI.SREEJA V., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.12.2020, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5022/2020(G), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** CRL.M.C.NO.5030 & 5022 OF 2020 3 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 1ST POUSHA, 1942** **Crl.MC.No.5022 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 992/2019 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT.,THALASSERY** **CRIME NO.571/2018 OF Kolavallur Police Station , Kannur** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5 & 7:** |**1**|**HANAS**| |---|---| ||**AGED 26 YEARS**| ||**S/O. MUSTHAFA,**| ||**KUNNOTH HOUSE, (ASNAS),**| ||**OLICHIL, PERINGATHUR,**| ||**KANNUR DISTRICT - 670675.**| |**2**|**ADHIL K**| ||**AGED 25 YEARS**| ||**S/O. SUNJALU,**| ||**THIRUVANGALATH HOUSE,**| ||**OLICHIL, PERINGATHUR,**| ||**KANNUR DISTRICT - 670675.**| |**3**|**FAISAL A.K**| ||**AGED 22 YEARS**| ||**S/O. NASAR,**| ||**POKKARAVIDA HOUSE,**| ||**OLICHIL, PERINGATHUR,**| ||**KANNUR DISTRICT - 670675.**| |**4**|**RAMEES P**| ||**AGED 30 YEARS**| ||**S/O. ABDHULLA,**| ||**PANANGADICHINTEVIDA,**| ||**(RAFEEK MANZIL), OLICHIL,**| ||**PERINGATHUR, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670675.**| CRL.M.C.NO.5030 & 5022 OF 2020 4 **5 NABEEL K AGED 27 YEARS S/O. KUNJALU, THIRUVANGALATH HOUSE, OLICHIL, PERINGATHUR, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670675.** **BY ADV. SRI.M.MUHAMMED SHAFI** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,**| ||**HIGH COURT OF KERALA,**| ||**ERNAKULAM - 682031.**| |**2**|**MUHAMMED N.P.,**| ||**AGED 29 YEARS**| ||**S/O. YOUSAF HAJI,**| ||**PUNATHIL HOUSE, KULAVALLUR P O,**| ||**KANNUR DISTRICT - 670676.**| |**3**|**IRSHAD A.K.,**| ||**AGED 28 YEARS**| ||**S/O. ABOOBAKER,**| ||**ARAYAKANDY HOUSE, KADAVATHUR PO,**| ||**KANNUR DISTRICT - 670676.**| ||**R2-3 BY ADV. T.RASINI**| ||**R1 BY SRI.SREEJA V., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR**| **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.12.2020, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5030/2020(G), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** CRL.M.C.NO.5030 & 5022 OF 2020 5 ## **`O R D E R`** ``` [ Crl.MC.5030/2020, Crl.MC.5022/2020 ] Dated this the 22[nd] day of December 2020 ``` ``` Petitioners are the accused in Crime No. 571/2018 registered at the Kolavallur Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 308 r/w Section 149 of IPC, now pending as C.P. No. 41/2019 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thalassery. The de facto complainant, at whose instance the crime was registered and the other injured person are arrayed as the 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents. Annexure-A2 and Annexure-A3 affidavits have been filed by the 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents stating that the dispute, which led to registration of the crime, has been settled amicably and that they have no subsisting grievance in the matter. ``` ``` 2. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also, who, on instructions, submits that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents. Since the defacto complainant and the ``` CRL.M.C.NO.5030 & 5022 OF 2020 6 ``` injured are abroad, the contact numbers were provided to the Investigating Officer. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that, the Investigating Officer could not contact the defacto complainant or the injured directly, but on contacting their mother, she stated that the dispute is resolved amicably and none of the parties have any subsisting grievance. ``` ``` 3. Having considered the gravity of the offences alleged, nature of the injury caused and having perused the affidavit filed by the 2[nd] and the 3[rd] respondents, the contents of which are submitted to be true and voluntary, I am satisfied that the dispute is settled and that no public interest is involved in this matter. Moreover, in view of the settlement, possibility of the criminal proceedings ending in conviction is remote. As such, continuance of the proceedings will amount to an abuse of process of court and hence, in view of the legal position set out by the Honourable Supreme Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [(2008) 4 SCC 582] and Gian Singh v. State ``` CRL.M.C.NO.5030 & 5022 OF 2020 7 ``` of Punjab and another [(2012) 10 SCC 303], there is no impediment in granting the relief sought. ``` ``` In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. The proceedings in C.P.No. 41/2019 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thalassery is quashed. ``` ## `Sd/-` ## **`V.G.ARUN`** ## **`JUDGE`** ## avs The final order dated 22.12.2020 in Crl.M.C. No. 5022/2020 is corrected by incorporating the words **'and S.C. No.992 of 2019 on the files of the Principal Sub Court, Thalassery'** as the last words in the 1[st] sentence of 1[st] Paragraph and last sentence of the last paragraph as per order dated 20.01.2021 in Crl.M.C. No.1/2021. Sd/- **DEPUTY REGISTRAR** ded/27.01.2021 CRL.M.C.NO.5030 & 5022 OF 2020 8 ## **APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 5030/2020** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 571/2018 OF KOLAVALLUR POLICE STATION ANNEXURE A2 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 13-10-2020 ANNEXURE A3 THE AFFIDAVIT SSWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 25/09/2020** ## **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** **NIL** CRL.M.C.NO.5030 & 5022 OF 2020 9 ## **APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 5022/2020** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 571 OF 2018 OF KOLAVALLUR POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2 AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 13.10.2020. ANNEXURE A3 AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 25.09.2020.** **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** **NIL** **avs //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE**