High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed; proceedings in CC No.1507/2020 arising...

Abdul Samad and others v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:CRL.MC 8721/2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date
2023-11-15
Court Decision / Holding
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. The further proceedings against the petitioners in CC No.1507/2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court‑I, Koyilandy arising from Crime No.78/2020 of Koyilandy Police Station, Kozhikode are quashed.
Final Disposition
Quashed; proceedings in CC No.1507/2020 arising from Crime No.78/2020 are quashed; matter disposed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Abdul Samad
  • Muhammed Iqbal
  • Sabeer Ali
  • Shajudeen
  • Azeez
  • Muhammed Sabith

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
  • The Sub Inspector of Police, Koyilandy Police Station, Kozhikode
  • Aswin Raj @Aswin
  • Vaisakh

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • T. D. Susmith Kumar
  • • T. O. Deeepa
  • • Jaykar K. S.
  • • C. Sivadas

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri MP Prasanth, Public Prosecutor
  • • Adv. Halvi K S

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case under Sec. 482 CrPC seeking quashing of CC No.1507/2020, arising from Crime No.78/2020 of Koyilandy Police Station (Kozhikode). Six petitioners (Abdul Samad; Muhammed Iqbal; Sabeer Ali; Shajudeen; Azeez; Muhammed Sabith) are accused in offences including Sections 143, 147, 308, 323, 324 and 341 read with 149 IPC. The petition asserts that the dispute has been settled between the parties and the victims have filed affidavits indicating no objection to quashing. The Public Prosecutor initially expressed reservations about quashing solely on settlement but conceded that the matter is settled. The court perused the affidavits and the records and relied on Supreme Court precedent, notably State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019), and the decisions in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab, to outline the framework for exercising the extraordinary power under S. 482 CrPC to quash non-compoundable offences in private settlements. It held that where a dispute is private, non-heinous in nature, and settlement is genuine (considering antecedents of the accused and absence of public interest concerns), quashing is permissible. Applying these principles, the court found the dispute private and the settlement acceptable, and allowed the Crl.M.C. quashing the proceedings in CC No.1507/2020. The matter is therefore disposed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Section 320 of the Indian Penal CodeSections 143, 147, 308, 323, 324, 341 read with 149 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Settlement of disputes between the parties can justify exercise of power under Sec. 482 CrPC to quash non-compoundable offences; Private nature of certain offences can permit quashing upon settlement.
  • Offences of a heinous nature (e.g., murder, rape, dacoity) or offences under special statutes, or acts by public servants, are not quashed merely on settlement.
  • Court may consider antecedents and conduct of the accused while applying Sec. 482 CrPC.
  • Laxmi Narayan principles; Gian Singh and Narinder Singh decisions referenced to frame the framework for quashing.
  • Private disputes with settled outcomes may be accorded quashing where the civil character predominates and public interest is not affected.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that the dispute has been settled and affidavits from victims support it; there is no objection to quashing under Sec. 482 CrPC, which is invoked to quash non‑compoundable offences where the civil character predominates. The Public Prosecutor shows reservations about quashing solely based on settlement but accepts that the matter is settled and endorses the need to assess jurisprudence from Laxmi Narayan and related cases.

Contentions of Respondents

The State, via the Public Prosecutor, cautions against quashing merely on settlement in non‑compoundable offences but does not oppose the settlement; the court is urged to apply the established test to ensure that quashing would not undermine public interest or the seriousness of the offences.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others2019 (5) SCC 688PositiveCited as the leading authority for exercising Sec. 482 CrPC to quash non‑compoundable offences in private disputes where settlement exists; form the core law extracted and applied here.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another2012 (10) SCC 303PositiveCited for the general principle that quashing may be permissible in private disputes; used to frame the approach along with Laxmi Narayan.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another2014 (6) SCC 466PositiveCited in conjunction with the above to discuss the scope and limits of quashing non‑compoundable offences under Sec. 482 CrPC.

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 Abdul Samad and others v. State of Kerala and 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 MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 15[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 24TH KARTHIKA, 1945 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 8721 OF 2023 ``` ``` CRIME NO.78/2020 OF Koyilandy Police Station, Kozhikode AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC 1507/2020 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,KOYILANDY ``` ## **`PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:`** - `1 ABDUL SAMAD, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. KOYA, KUNIYIL HOUSE, KAVUMVATTOM, NADERI P.O , KOZHIKODE., PIN - 673620` - `2 MUHAMMED IQBAL, AGED 29 YEARS S/O. AHAMMED, KARUVARAKKANDY HOUSE, KAVUMVATTOM, NADERI P.O , KOZHIKODE., PIN - 673620` - `3 SABEER ALI, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. KUNHAYAN KUTTY, KOLLOROTH HOUSE, KAVUMVATTOM, NADERI P.O , KOZHIKODE., PIN - 673620` - `4 SHAJUDHEEN, AGED 43 YEARS S/O. KUNHU MOIDEEN, MAMMILI HOUSE, KAVUMVATTOM, NADERI P.O , KOZHIKODE., PIN - 673620` - `5 AZEEZ, AGED 43 YEARS S/O. KUNHAMMED, ASHARIKKAL HOUSE, KAVUMVATTOM, NADERI P.O , KOZHIKODE., PIN - 673620` ``` 6MUHAMMED SABITH, AGED 25 YEARS S/O. ABDUL SALAM, THAZHE KARUVARAKKANDY HOUSE, KAVUMVATTOM, NADERI P.O , KOZHIKODE., PIN - 673620 BY ADVS. T.D.SUSMITH KUMAR T.O.DEEPA JAYKAR.K.S. C.SIVADAS ``` 2 Crl.MC 8721/2023 ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** - `1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031` - `2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOYILANDY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE., PIN - 673305` - `3 ASWIN RAJ @ASWIN, AGED 23 YEARS S/O. RAJAN, RAMAPPATTUKANDY HOUSE, KAVUMVATTAM, NADERI P.O, KOZHIKODE., PIN - 673620` - `4 VAISAKH, AGED 24 YEARS S/O. SOMAN, KOLLACHERRY HOUSE, KAVUMVATTAM, NADERI P.O, KOZHIKODE., PIN - 673620` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` SRI MP PRASANTH ,PP ADV.HALVI K S ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 3 Crl.MC 8721/2023 ## **P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** ## **------------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.8721 of 2023** **------------------------------------------Dated this the 15[th] day of November, 2023** ## **ORDER** This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for the sake of brevity). 2. The petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.1507/2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Koyilandy arising from Crime No.78/2020 of Koyilandy Police Station, Kozhikode. The above case is chargesheeted alleging offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 308, 323, 324, 341 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and assaulted the victims after wrongfully confining them. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties have settled their dispute and do not wish to pursue the prosecution proceedings. The counsel relies on the affidavits filed 4 Crl.MC 8721/2023 by the victims in support of his contention. The counsel appearing for the victims also submitted that the matter is settled and the victims have no objection in quashing the prosecution. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, has expressed reservations about quashing the proceedings solely on the basis of the settlement. But the Public Prosecutor conceded that the matter is settled between the parties. 6. This Court has considered the submission of the petitioners, victims and the Public Prosecutor and has also gone through the records including the affidavits filed by the victims. 7. In **State of Madhya Pradesh v Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019 (5) SCC 688),** three judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized the situation in which non compoundable offences can be quashed invoking the powers under Section 482 of the Code. The apex court in **Laxmi Narayan** 's case (supra) also relied on the law laid down in **Gian** **Singh v. State of Punjab and another (2012 (10) SCC 303)** and **Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another (2014 (6) SCC 466)** . The apex court in paragraph 13 of the **Laxmi Narayan** 's case discussed the law in detail and the 5 Crl.MC 8721/2023 ## same is extracted hereunder: _“13. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to herein above, it is observed and held as under: i) that the power conferred under S.482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non - compoundable offences under S.320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;_ _ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;_ _iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender; iv) offences under S.307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under S.307 IPC and / or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under S.482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of S.307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of S.307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under S.307 IPC. For this_ 6 Crl.MC 8721/2023 _purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital / delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed / charge is framed and / or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated herein above;_ _v) while exercising the power under S.482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non- compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement / compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc.”_ 8. Keeping in mind the above dictum laid down by the apex court, this court perused the facts in this case and also perused the documents produced by the parties. After going through the entire facts and circumstances I am of the considered opinion that the dispute is private in nature and the settlement can be accepted. 7 Crl.MC 8721/2023 Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous case is allowed. The further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.1507/2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Koyilandy arising from Crime No.78/2020 of Koyilandy Police Station, Kozhikode are quashed. Sd/- ## **P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** Sbna/ 8 Crl.MC 8721/2023 ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 8721/2023`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A-1THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR DATED 21/01/2020 IN CRIME NO. 78 OF 2020 OF KOYILANDY POLICE STATION ALONG WITH FIS. ``` ``` Annexure A-2THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT NO. 683/20 DATED 17/10/2020 OF KOYILANDY POLICE STATION Annexure A-3AFFIDAVIT DATED 16/10/2023 SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Annexure A-4AFFIDAVIT DATED 16/10/2023 SWORN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT ```