High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-01-19Crl.M.C. allowed; quashed the Final Report only...

Abdul Sathar K.S v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C. No. 204 of 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. Kauser Edappagath
Judgment Date: 2023-01-19
Court Decision / Holding: Crl.M.C. allowed. All further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A1 Final Report in CC No.255/2021 against the petitioner/accused No.1 stand quashed. The court held that it is permissible to quash the FIR/Final Report against one or some accused on the ground of settlement under S.482 Cr.P.C, considering the facts, the nature of the offences, and ends of justice.
Final Disposition: Crl.M.C. allowed; quashed the Final Report only against accused No.1; proceedings against other accused continue as per the court’s directions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Abdul Sathar K.S

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Ayishath Shamees K M
Shamla @ Mariyath Samla.K.S.
Sahuria @ Sahooriya Sahuriya Manzil
Sherif.K. K.K.Puram House, Cherakala, Chengala Village and Post, Kasaragod Taluk
Sarabi Sahuriya Manzil, Nasrath Road, Thalangara, Chengala Village and Post, Kasaragod Taluk

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Subhash Cyriac
• Sheeba Joseph

Counsels for Respondents

• Asha Jyothy
• Sri.P.G.Manu
• Sr.P.P. (Senior Public Prosecutor)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a criminal miscellaneous case (Crl.M.C. No. 204 of 2023) before the High Court of Kerala, challenging the order/judgment in CC No.255/2021 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kasaragod. The petitioner, Abdul Sathar K.S., accused No.1 in the case, moves under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the final report on the ground of amicable settlement between himself and the de facto complainant, Ayishath Shamees K.M. The de facto complainant has filed an affidavit and appeared through counsel; the prosecution confirms that the dispute between accused No.1 and the complainant is settled. Five accused are named (accused Nos.1–5) with the state as the state and de facto complainant as respondent 2. The offence alleged is under Section 498-A IPC. The court acknowledges decisions by the Supreme Court — Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, and Laxmi Narayan — endorsing quashing of criminal proceedings under S.482 Cr.P.C where the matter is settled, even where the offence is non-compoundable, to serve ends of justice and prevent abuse of process. It also notes Lovely Salhotra and Sajeev & Another to illustrate partial quashing in settled cases. The court ultimately allows the Crl.M.C. and quashes only the proceedings against accused No.1. The order cites that the settlement involved the petitioner with the de facto complainant, and that the other accused were not parties to the settlement, with no public interest impediment. The matter is resolved by quashing the final report against the petitioner alone, while other proceedings continue as to the remaining accused.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 498A of the Indian Penal CodeSection 482 of Cr.P.CSection 320 of Cr.P.C

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ends of justice
Abuse of process of the court
Compounding of offences under Section 320 Cr.P.C.
Settlement between parties can justify quashing under S.482 Cr.P.C.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the entire dispute between accused No.1 and the de facto complainant is amicably settled. On the strength of the settlement and the affidavits filed, coupled with the de facto complainant’s statement that she does not wish to pursue the crime against accused No.1, it is argued that invoking S.482 Cr.P.C to quash the final report against accused No.1 is warranted. Relying on Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, and Laxmi Narayan, the petitioner submits that it is permissible to quash non-compoundable offences against one or a subset of accused where the ends of justice and prevention of abuse of process demand it, particularly when public interest is not served by continuation. The petitioner emphasizes that the settlement is purely personal, and that the 2nd respondent does not object to quashing against accused No.1 alone; therefore, the proceedings should be discontinued in respect of him.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents acknowledge the amicable settlement between accused No.1 and the de facto complainant but contend that quashing the proceedings in part (i.e., against accused No.1 alone) should be exercised with care given the non-compoundable nature of the offence. They point out that accused Nos. 2–5 remain under investigation, and public interest and the integrity of the process must be preserved. Nevertheless, the 2nd respondent has not objected to quashing only against accused No.1 in light of the settlement. The respondents rely on the cited precedents to argue that quashing under S.482 Cr.P.C is permissible in certain circumstances to prevent abuse of process and to ensure ends of justice, provided the facts support a partial quashing without undermining the legal framework governing offences like 498A. They further contend that each case must be considered on its own facts, and that the settlement alone should not automatically extinguish liability if broader public interest is at stake.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)	Positive	The Supreme Court held that the High Court can quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C on settlement even where the offence is non-compoundable, to advance ends of justice and prevent abuse of process.
Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others	2014 (6) SCC 466	Positive	Affirmed that quashing may be allowed on settlement under S.482 Cr.P.C when warranted by the facts, despite non-compoundable offences.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others	2019 (5) SCC 688	Positive	Affirmed the principle that quashing can be done on settlement under S.482 Cr.P.C to serve ends of justice and prevent abuse of process.
Lovely Salhotra and Another v. State NCT of Delhi and Another	2018 (12) SCC 391	Positive	Recognized that quashing proceedings against a subset of accused is permissible where facts support it, on the basis of settlement.
Sajeev & Another v. State of Kerala and Another	2022 (3) KHC 69	Positive	Held that quashing against some accused on the ground of settlement is permissible depending on facts and circumstances.

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 Sathar K.S 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 DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH THURSDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 29TH POUSHA, 1944** **CRL.MC NO. 204 OF 2023 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 255/2021 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,KASARAGOD** ## **PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:** ABDUL SATHAR K.S AGED 37 YEARS S/O MOHAMMED SALI, SAHURIYA MANZIL, CHOORI ,RAMDAS NAGAR, KASARAGOD, KASARAGOD., PIN - 671122 BY ADVS. SUBHASH CYRIAC SHEEBA JOSEPH ## **- RESPONDENTS/ STATE AND DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031 2 AYISHATH SHAMEES K M@ AYISHATH SHAMIS.K.M. K K KUNNIL HOUSE, CHEROOR.P.O., CHENGALA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD., PIN - 671541 3 SHAMLA @ MARIYATH SAMLA.K.S. K.K.PURAM HOUSE, CHERKALA, CHENGALA VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK KASARAGOD - , PIN - 671122 4 SAHURIA @ SAHOORIYA. SAHURIYA MANZIL, NASRATH ROAD, THALANGARA, CHENGALA VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK KASARAGOD., PIN - 671122 Crl.M.C.No.204 of 2023 -:2:- 5 SHERIF.K. K.K.PURAM HOUSE, CHERKALA , CHENGALA VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK KASARAGOD., PIN - 671122 6 SARABI SAHURIYA MANZIL, NASRATH ROAD, THALANGARA, CHENGALA VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK KASARAGOD. , PIN - 671122 BY ADV ASHA JYOTHY SRI.P.G.MANU SR.P.P **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Crl.M.C.No.204 of 2023 ## -:3:- ## **O R D E R** Dated this the 19[th] day of January, 2023 This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A1 Final Report in C.C.No.255/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kasaragod on the ground of settlement between the parties. 2. Altogether, there are five accused. The petitioner is the accused No.1. The 2[nd] respondent is the de facto complainant and the respondents 3 to 6 are the accused Nos. 2 to 5. 3. The offence alleged against the accused is punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The 2[nd] respondent entered appearance through counsel. An affidavits sworn in by her is also produced **.** 5. I have heard Sri.Subhash Cyriac, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Asha Jyothy, the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and Sri. P.G. Manu, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 6. The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit sworn in by the 2[nd] respondent would show that the entire Crl.M.C.No.204 of 2023 -:4:- dispute between the accused No.1 with the de facto complainant has been amicably settled and the de facto complainant has decided not to proceed with the crime against the accused No.1 any further. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instruction, submits that the matter was inquired into through the investigating officer, and a statement of the de facto complainant was also recorded wherein she reported that the dispute with the accused No.1 was amicably settled. 7. The Apex Court in _**Gian Singh v. State of Punjab**_ [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)], _**Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others**_ [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and _**State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others**_ [(2019) 5 SCC 688] has held that the High Court invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C can quash criminal proceedings in relation to non-compoundable offence where the parties have settled the matter between themselves notwithstanding the bar under S.320 of Cr.P.C. if it is warranted in the given facts and circumstances of the case or to ensure ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court. 8. It is true that the settlement was arrived at between Crl.M.C.No.204 of 2023 -:5:- the 2[nd] respondent (de facto complainant) and the accused No.1 alone, who is the petitioner. No settlement was arrived at with the remaining accused. Hence, the question is whether the FIR/Final Report against some of the accused alone could be quashed on the ground of settlement invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C. The Apex Court in _**Lovely Salhotra and Another v. State NCT of Delhi and Another**_ [(2018) 12 SCC 391] quashed the proceedings against one of the accused alone, invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C. That was a case where the High Court refused to quash the proceeding holding that the FIR cannot be quashed in part. True, in the said case, the Apex Court had taken into account the facts of the case that no cognizable offence was made out. The Apex Court, on facts, also found that no offence was made out against the appellant/accused therein. However, the principle that could be deduced from the dictum laid down in the said decision is that it is not impermissible to quash the FIR _qua_ some of the accused alone, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. This Court in _**Sajeev & Another v. State of Kerala and Another**_ (2022 (3) KHC 69), has held that it is permissible to quash the proceedings against some of the ## Crl.M.C.No.204 of 2023 ## -:6:- accused alone on the ground of settlement depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. In these circumstances, I hold that it is permissible in law to quash the FIR or Final Report only against one or some of the accused on the ground of settlement, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C. 9. The learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent submitted that as the dispute between the petitioner and the 2[nd] respondent is amicably settled, 2[nd] respondent has no objection whatsoever if the final report is quashed only against the petitioner. The dispute in the above case is purely personal in nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A1 as against the petitioner. The offences in question do not fall within the category of offences prohibited for compounding in terms of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in _**Gian Singh**_ (supra), _**Narinder Singh**_ (supra) and _**Laxmi Narayan**_ (supra). For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that no purpose will be served in proceeding with the matter further. Crl.M.C.No.204 of 2023 -:7:- Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A1 Final Report in C.C.No.255/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kasaragod as against the petitioner/accused No.1 alone hereby stand quashed. Sd/- **DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE** APA Crl.M.C.No.204 of 2023 ## -:8:- ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 204/2023** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES** Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 2309-2021 IN CRIME NO. 505/2021 OF VIDYANAGAR POLICE STATION IN C.C NO.255/2021 CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KASARAGOD Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 01-10-2022 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.