Kerala High Court
Chanth Ibrahimkutty vs State Of Kerala
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
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. 6068 of 2016 ()
---------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 465/2015 of ADDL. D.C. & SESSIONS
COURT - II, MANJERI DATED
CRIME NO. 382/2010 OF TIRURANGADI POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:-:
-----------------------
1. CHANTH IBRAHIMKUTTY,
S/O.ISMAIL, AGED 41 YEARS,
CHANTHU HOUSE, POTTAMMAL,
P.O.PANTHARANGADI,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
2. KAREEM,
S/O.ISMAIL, AGED 36 YEARS,
CHANTHU HOUSE, POTTAMMAL,
P.O.PANTHARANGADI,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
3. YAKOOB,
S/O.SAIDALAVI AGED 37 YEARS,
MACHINGAL HOUSE, PANTHARANGADI POST,
THRIKKULAM, PALLIPPADI,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 306.
4. AMEEN,
AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMEDALI,
POOCHENGAL KUNNATH HOUSE,
PALATHINGAL, PANTHARANGADI P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
5. FAIZAL,
S/O.KUNHAMMAD, AGED 32 YEARS,
MACHINGAL HOUSE, PANTHARANGADI POST,
THRIKKULAM, PALLIPPADI,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 306.
6. HAMSA,
S/O.SAIDALAVI, AGED 32 YEARS,
MACHINGAL HOUSE,
PALATHINGAL-PALLIPPADI,
PANTHARANGADI POST,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 306.
CONTD...
:2:
Crl.MC.No. 6068 of 2016 ()
---------------------------
7. ANEESH,
S/O.VELAYUDHAN, AGED 31 YEARS,
PALAMADATHIL HOUSE,
PANTHARANGADI POST,
THRIKKULAM, PALLIPPADI,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 306.
8. MOHAMMED RAFEEQUE,
AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.ABDU SAMAD,
MACHINGAL HOUSE, PALATHINGAL,
PANTHARANGADI P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
9. HANEEFA,
S/O.KUTTASSERY ALASSAN, AGED 43 YEARS,
PALATHINGAL, PANTHARANGADI P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
10. SHAHID,
S/O.KUTTASSERY ALASSAN, AGED 28 YEARS,
PALATHINGAL, PANTHARANGADI P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
11. ABDUL HAQ,
S/O.ABDU RAHIMAN, AGED 28 YEARS,
THOTTUMUGHATH AVIYIL HOUSE,
PALATHINGAL, PANTHARANGADI POST,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 306.
12. SUBAIR,
S/O.KUNHIMUHAMMED, AGED 34 YEARS,
MACHINGAL HOUSE, PALATHINGAL-PALLIPPADI,
PANTHARANGADI POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 676 306.
13. NISHAD,
S/O.BEERAN, AGED 41 YEARS,
MOOZHIKKAL VEEDU, PANTHARANGADI POST,
PALLIPPADI - THRIKKULAM,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 306.
14. NOUFAL,
AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.MOOZHIKKAL SAINABHA,
PALATHINGAL, PANTHARANGADI POST,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 306.
15. KOYAMON,
AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.KUNHIMOHAMMED,
THAZHETHAKATHARAKKAL, PALATHINGAL,
PANTHARANGADI POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 676 306.
CONTD...
:3:
Crl.MC.No. 6068 of 2016 ()
---------------------------
BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:-:
--------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
TIRURANGADI POLICE STATION,
TIRURANGADI - 676 306,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
2. ABOOBAKKAR,
AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMAD,
POOCHENGAL KUNNATH,
PANTHARANGADI POST, THRIKKULAM,
PALLIPPADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 676 306.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.ARUN MATHEW VADAKKAN
R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. T.R.RENJITH
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CONTD...
:4:
Crl.MC.No. 6068 of 2016 ()
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
ANNEXURE A1. CERTIFIED COPY OF PRIVATE COMPLAINT DATED
03.05.2010 AND NUMBERED AS CMP NO.1508/2010 FILED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRTE'S COURT,
PARAPPANANGADI.
ANNEXURE A2. CERTIFIED COPY OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORT DATED
17.05.2010 IN CRIME NO.382/2010 OF TIRURANGADI POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE A3. CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT DATED 25.08.2010 IN
CRIME NO.382/2010 OF TIRURANGADI POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE A4. TRUE COPY OF PLAINT DATED 12.01.2010 IN
O.S.NO.17/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PARAPPANANGADI.
ANNEXURE A5. TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 24.09.2015 ENTERED
INTO BETWEEN THE PARTIES.
ANNEXURE A6. AFFIDAVIT DATED 22.08.2016 EXECUTED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL
-----------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
SKS
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J.
----------------------------------
Crl. M.C. No. 6068 of 2016
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st 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 him as S.C. No. 465 of 2015 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge-II, Manjeri. In the said case, they stand indicted for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294 (b), 323, 324, 308, 342, 447 and 506
(i) r/w Section 149 of the IPC.
2.The prosecution allegation is that, on 13.02.2010 at 12.30 pm, the petitioners wrongfully trespassed into the house of the 2nd respondent and thereafter assaulted him and some other inmates and thus committed the offence.
3.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the 2nd respondent and the learned Public Crl. M.C. No. 6068 of 2016 -2- Prosecutor. It is submitted that there was a dispute concerning a pathway which led to the institution of O.S.No.117 of 2010 before the Court of the Munsiff, Parappanangadi. As an aftermath to the civil proceedings, several criminal cases happened to be registered against the rival parties. Finally, at the instance of mediators and well-wishers, all pending disputes were settled and the parties are living in peace and harmony. It is urged that the pendency of the criminal proceedings will fuel fresh disputes and is likely to disturb the amity between the parties. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent relies on Annexure-A5 settlement agreement wherein both the parties have agreed that all pending civil and criminal disputes will be withdrawn.
4.Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent refers to Annexure-A6 affidavit sworn to by him and submits that no acrimony exists between the parties. According to the Crl. M.C. No. 6068 of 2016 -3- learned counsel, the 2nd respondent has no objection in quashing the proceedings.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, this Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings.
6.The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions has submitted that the disputes have been resolved and in view of Annexure-A6, the State has no serious objections in quashing the proceedings as it would bring about peace and harmony between the rival parties.
7.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 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 Crl. M.C. No. 6068 of 2016 -4- 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, 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 Crl. M.C. No. 6068 of 2016 -5- recently in Rajesh Kamath J. and Others v. Mohana Kurup and Others [AIR 2016 SC 2452].
8.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. Further more, settlement will augur well for the interest for the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony.
9.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.
Crl. M.C. No. 6068 of 2016 -6- In the result, this petition will stand allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in S.C. No. 465 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Manjeri are quashed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE SKS //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE