The High Court of Kerala allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings for trespass and assault. The court held that since the dispute was amicably settled, continued prosecution would be an abuse of process and not serve justice.
The criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 1007 of 2015 and the final report against the petitioners are quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
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. 1873 of 2016 ()
AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC NO.1007/2015 of JFCM, TALIPARAMBA CRIME NO. 594/2015 OF THALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION , KANNUR
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
1. SALAM P.K.
AGED:30 YEARS, S/O ABOOBACKER SIDHIQUE, PILAVINDAYKEEZHIL, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 141.
2. FAIZAL P.K.
AGED:24 YEARS, S/O ABOOBACKER SIDHIQUE, PILAVINDAYKEEZHIL, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 141.
3. SALI P.K.
AGED:39 YEARS, S/O ABOOBACKER SIDHIQUE, PILAVINDAYKEEZHIL, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 141.
BY ADVS.SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH SRI.M.A.AHAMMAD SAHEER
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1. STATE OF KERALA RERPESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, TALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION, KANNUR-670 141.
3. MANOHARAN A AGED 40 YEARS, ARUVIRUTHI, KUTTIYERI AMSOM, THALORA, THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR-670 141.
4. UMESH.K.V
AGED 39 YEARS, S/O KESAVAN, NELLIPARAMBU, KUTTIYERI AMSOM DESOM, THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR-670 141.
R3 & 4 BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-112016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 1873 of 2016 ()
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DT. 30/4/2015 IN C.C. NO. 1007/2015 ON THE FILE OF JFCM, THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT.
ANNEXURE A4 THE AFFIDAVIT SWEAR BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DT. 11/3/2016.
ANNEXURE A5 WOUND CERTIFICATE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT ISSUED BY MEDICAL OFFICER OF THE TALIPARAMBA CO-OP.HOSPITAL DTD 21.4.2015
RESPONDENT(S)'ANNEXURES
NIL
/TRUE COPY/
VPS PS TO JUDGE
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J
----------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.1873 of 2016
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of November, 2016
O R D E R
Crl.M.C.1873/2016
2
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.
Crl.M.C.1873/2016
3
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
466, the pertinent observations which are as under:
XXXXXXXXXXXX
29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis
Crl.M.C.1873/2016
4
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 conviction would be bleak.
Crl.M.C.1873/2016 5
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 in C.C.No. 1007 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Taliparamba are quashed.
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE
vps
3 issues framed by the court
Whether Section 482 CrPC can be invoked to quash pending criminal proceedings in a private dispute case involving trespass and assault where a settlement has been reached.
Whether the quashing of proceedings would secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of law.
Whether the offences committed constitute grave crimes precluding quashing despite a compromise.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of PunjabRelied on¶55
Gian singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Narinder Singh v. State of PunjabRelied on¶59
Narinder singh v. State of Punjab. (2014) 6 SCC 466 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Salam P.K.
Faizal P.K.
Sali P.K.
State of Kerala
Manoharan A
Umesh.K.V
Raja Vijayaraghavan V
N/A
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
