High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed; proceedings against petitioners quashed

ADHINAN and others v. STATE OF KERALA

Case / Petition Number:CRL.MC NO. 5408 OF 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date
2023-10-11
Court Decision / Holding
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. All further proceedings as against the petitioners in CC No.167 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad arising from Crime No.14 of 2023 of Pavaratty Police Station, Thrissur District are quashed.
Final Disposition
Quashed; proceedings against petitioners quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Adhinan
  • Muhammed Nahas
  • Muhammed Saffan
  • Afsal Nazim

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
  • Muhammed Nihan, represented by his father N.K. Kamaludheen

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • V. V. Joy
  • • Ramakrishnan M.N.

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under section 482 CrPC filed by four accused challenging CC No.167/2023 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad, arising from Crime No.14/2023 of Pavaratty Police Station, Thrissur. The petitioners (accused) seek quashing on the basis that the dispute has been settled between the parties and there is no public interest in continuing the prosecution. The victims have filed affidavits in support of settlement, and even the victims’ counsel states the matter is settled and the victim has no objection to quashing. The Public Prosecutor initially expresses reservations but concedes that the parties have settled. The court examines precedents laid down by the Supreme Court’s triple-judge decision in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, relied upon along with Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, to identify the circumstances in which non-compoundable offences can be quashed under S.482 CrPC when the dispute is private and resolved. It emphasizes that such power is not available for serious/offences like murder, rape or dacoity, offences under special statutes (e.g., POC Act) or offences committed by public servants, and that S.307 IPC/Arms Act cases fall in a category that cannot be quashed merely on settlement. The court notes the private nature of the dispute, considers antecedents and conduct of the accused, and ultimately holds that the settlement is acceptable. Consequently, the Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed and all further proceedings against the petitioners in CC No.167/2023 are quashed, with annexures detailing the filings and affidavits.

Provisions of Law Cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 482)Indian Penal Code: Sections 341, 323, 324 read with 34Section 320 IPCSection 307 IPCArms Act (as noted in discussion)Prevention of Corruption Act (as part of ‘special statutes’)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Quashing under S.482 CrPC is permissible for private, civil, or family disputes where the entire dispute has been resolved and the offences are non-compoundable.
  • Such power is not available for heinous and serious offences (e.g., murder, rape, dacoity) or offences under special statutes or involving public servants.
  • Offences under S.307 IPC and related Arms Act would be treated as crimes against society and normally cannot be quashed on the basis of settlements.
  • The High Court may examine, after discovery and charge framing, whether inclusion of S.307 IPC is genuine or merely for formality; otherwise, it is not permissible to quash.
  • Antecedents and conduct of the accused are relevant factors when exercising the power under 482 CrPC at the stage of квashing.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that the dispute has been settled, affiants from the victims support the settlement, and there is no public interest in continuing the prosecution. They rely on the approach in Laxmi Narayan and related decisions that private, non-serious disputes can be quashed under S.482 CrPC once settled, and that a settlement should not be rejected merely because of the absence of a private prosecution objective.

Contentions of Respondents

The State Prosecutor expressed initial reservations about quashing non-compoundable offences but ultimately acknowledged the settlement. The State emphasizes the need to avoid undermining public interest and to ensure that the nature of the offences and the evidence do not render quashing inappropriate, while recognizing the private nature of the dispute and the settlement.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others2019 (5) SCC 688PositiveCited as the leading authority on exercising the power under Section 482 CrPC to quash non-compoundable offences in private disputes when there is settlement.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another2012 (10) SCC 303PositiveCited in the context of the framework for quashing and the settled law when a dispute is private and settled.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another2014 (6) SCC 466PositiveCited to supplement the jurisprudence on whether to quash non-compoundable offences after settlement and the limits of such power.

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 ADHINAN and others v. STATE OF KERALA 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 11[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 19TH ASWINA, 1945`** ## **`CRL.MC NO. 5408 OF 2023`** ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 167/2023 OF JUDICIAL ``` ## **`MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,CHAVAKKAD`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** - `1 ADHINAN, AGED 18 YEARS S/O NOWSHAD, PUTHIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, ORUMANAYUR VILLAGE,THANGALPADI DESAM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680512` - `2 MUHAMMED NAHAS, AGED 18 YEARS S/O NOORDHEEN, RAYAMARAKKAR VEETTIL` - `HOUSE,NALAKATH KADAPPURAM VILLAGE,VATTEKAD DESAM, MOONAMKALLU,CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680514` - `3 MUHAMMED SAFFAN,AGED 18 YEARS S/O ABUFASIL, VALIYAKATH VEETTIL HOUSE, PAVARATTY VILLAGE, DESAM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680507` - `4 AFSAL NAZIM,AGED 18 YEARS S/O BASHEER, PARATHU VEETTIL HOUSE, PAVARATTY VILLAGE,PAIKANNIYOOR DESAM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680507` ``` BY ADVS. V.V.JOY RAMAKRISHNAN M.N. ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** - `1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031` - `2 MUHAMMED NIHAN, AGED 16 YEARS S/O N.K.KAMALUDHEEN, NALAKATH HOUSE, PAVARATTY VILLAGE, VETTIKKAL DESAM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, IS REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER N.K.KAMALUDHEEN., AGED 57 YEARS, S/O` -2- Crl.M.C No. 5408 of 2023 ``` KUNJIMUHAMMED, NALAKATH HOUSE, PAVARATTY VILLAGE, VETTIKKAL DESAM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680507 ``` ``` BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` MP PRASANTH PP ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` -3- Crl.M.C No. 5408 of 2023 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** ====================================================== Crl.M.C No. 5408 of 2023 ============================================================= Dated this the 11[th] day of October, 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. Petitioners are the accused in CC No.167 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad arising from Crime No.14 of 2023 of Pavaratty Police Station, Thrissur District. The above case is charge sheeted alleging offences punishable under sections 341, 323, 324 read with 34 IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused wrongfully confined the victim and assaulted. 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 counsel appearing for the victims also -4- Crl.M.C No. 5408 of 2023 submitted that the matter is settled and the victim has 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, victim and the Public Prosecutor and has also gone through the records including the affidavit filed by the victim. 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 -5- Crl.M.C No. 5408 of 2023 _**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_ -6- Crl.M.C No. 5408 of 2023 _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 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_ -7- Crl.M.C No. 5408 of 2023 _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. Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous case is allowed. All further proceedings as against the petitioners in CC No.167 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad arising from Crime No.14 of 2023 of Pavaratty Police Station, Thrissur District are quashed. _sd/-_ ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** das -8- Crl.M.C No. 5408 of 2023 ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5408/2023`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR & FI STATEMENT REGISTERED BY THE PAVARATTY POLICE IN CRIME 14/2023 DATED 07.01.2023 ``` ``` Annexure 2A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 14/2023 FILED BY THE PAVARATTY POLICE BEFORE THE LEARNED JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, CHAVAKKAD DATED 30.01.2023 Annexure 3A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 02.06.2023 EVIDENCING THE FACT OF SETTLEMENT Annexure 4A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE FATHER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 02.06.2023 EVIDENCING THE FACT OF SETTLEMENT ```