Adhil Mujeeb and Others v. State of Kerala

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN`** ``` MONDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 3RD ASWINA, 1945 ``` ## **`CRL.MC NO. 7215 OF 2023`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** - **`1 ADHIL MUJEEB AGED 20 YEARS SO MUJEEB RAHMAN, T.K. HOUSE, KATTIPPARUTHI P.O., MALAPPURAM., PIN - 676552`** - **`2 NIHAL ROSHEN AGED 22 YEARS S,O MOHAMMED SALEEM , MORKAN HOUSE, MONALODI P.O., NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM,, PIN - 679329`** - **`3 RISHAN V.P AGED 22 YEARS S,O ABDURAIHMAN V.P., VALLIKKAPARAMBHIL HOUSE, PANDIKKAD, VELLUVANGAD P.O., MALAPPURAM., PIN - 676521`** - **`4 MOHAMMED SHIBILI AGED 21 YEARS S,O ABDUL SALAM, THONDIYIL HOUSE, POOLAMANNA P.O., PANDIKKAD, MALAPPURAM., PIN - 679327`** - **`5 JASHID AGED 23 YEARS S,O ABDUL HAMEED, PUTHUSSERI HOUSE, NARUKARA P.O., MANJERI, MALAPPURAM., PIN - 676122`** - **`6 ARJUN BABY AGED 24 YEARS S,O BABY G., KOTTARATHIL HOUSE, THOTTAPPALLY P.O., ALAPUZHA., PIN - 688563`** - **`7 JASIR MUHAMMED K.P AGED 20 YEARS S,O MOHAMMED K.P., MADAPALLY HOUSE, KONDOTTY P.O., CHIRAYIL, MALAPPURAM., PIN - 673638`** - **`8 AMAL VADOOD AGED 21 YEARS S,O VADOOD RAIHMAN, KEELATHI PULAPARAMBHIL HOUSE, KUMARANELLUR P.O., MUKKAM, KOZHIKODE., PIN - 686016`** - **`9 MOHAMMED LUKMANUL HAKKIM AGED 21 YEARS PEZHUMKALATHIL HOUSE, PERINTHALMANNA P.O., MALAPPURAM., PIN - 679322 BY ADVS. VIVEK.P.K GADHA.S MOHAMED SHAREEF PARIYARATH`** ``` CRL.MC NO. 7215 OF 2023 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031`** - **`2 ADITYA VINOD AGED 22 YEARS`** - **`S,O G. VINOD, NANDANAM HOUSE, MUSEUM CROSS LANE, CHEMBUKKAVU P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680020`** - **`3 AKHIL RAJU AGED 23 YEARS`** - **`S,O RAJU P.P., PALATTY HOUSE, KARUKUTTY, NEAR AREECKAL, KARUKUTTY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 683576`** - **`4 ASHIQ IBRAHIMKUTTY AGED 27 YEARS`** - **`S,O M.M. IBRAHIMKUTTY, CHENGATH HOUSE, NANNAMUKKU, CHERUVALLUR, MALAPPURAM DITRICT., PIN - 679575`** - **`5 NAVEEN N.S AGED 20 YEARS`** - **`S,O NARAYANAN P., PALAYATTU HOUSE, PUNNASSERI, NRIKKUNI, KAKKUR, PUNNASSERI P.O., KOZHIKKOD DISTRICT., PIN - 673585`** ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ## **`SREEJA V PP`** ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 7215 OF 2023 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** **................................................................... Crl.M.C No.7215 of 2023** **..................................................................... Dated this the 25[th] day of September, 2023** ## **O R D E R** 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 Crime No. 316 of 2023 on the files of the Viyyur Police Station, Thrissur, now the final report is filed and the case is pending as C.C No. 953/2023 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate CourtI, Thrissur. 3. The prosecution case is that accused formed themselves into a unlawful assembly and assaulted the victims. 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 affidavit filed by the victims in support of his contention. The ``` CRL.MC NO. 7215 OF 2023 ``` ``` 4 ``` counsel appearing for the victims also submitted that the matter is settled and the victim/s has/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 ``` CRL.MC NO. 7215 OF 2023 ``` ``` 5 ``` ## paragraph 13 of the **Laxmi Narayan** 's case discussed the law in detail and the 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_ ``` CRL.MC NO. 7215 OF 2023 ``` ``` 6 ``` _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 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 ``` CRL.MC NO. 7215 OF 2023 ``` ``` 7 ``` 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. Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous case is allowed. All further against the petitioner in C.C No. 953/2023 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thrissur, arising from Crime No.316 of 2023 of Viyyur Police Station are quashed. Sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** ``` SJ ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 7215 OF 2023 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7215/2023`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`** ``` Annexure A1THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 316 OF 2023 OF VIYYUR POLICE STATION Annexure A2THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND, RESPONDENT DATED 21.07.2023 Annexure A3THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 21.07.2023 Annexure A4THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 21.07.2023 Annexure A5THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 21.07.2023 ```