Basheer, Rashid, Sameer and Raheem v. State of Kerala and Abdulla Haji and Jameela (Crl.M.C No. 1546 of 2025)

Crl.M.C.No.1546 of 2025 -: 1 :- **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:21947 ``` ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1946 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 1546 OF 2025 ``` ``` CRIME NO.766/2020 OF NADAPURAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE ``` ``` AGAINST CC NO.633 OF 2021 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NADAPURAM ``` ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3 AND 5:`** ``` 1BASHEER AGED 42 YEARS S/O ABDULLA HAJI, THEKKUMBATTIL HOUSE IYYAMKODE P.O, NADAPURAM VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673504 ``` ## **`2 RASHID`** ``` AGED 38 YEARS S/O ABDULLA HAJI, THEKKUMBATTIL HOUSE, IYYAMKODE P.O, NADAPURAM VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673504 ``` ## **`3 SAMEER`** ``` AGED 43 YEARS S/O MAMMU, NADUCHALIL HOUSE, IYYAMKODE P.O, NADAPURAM VIA KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673504 ``` ## **`4 RAHEEM`** ``` AGED 22 YEARS ``` ``` S/O ABOOBAKKER KARIYADANKADI HOUSE, LYYAMKODE P.O, NADAPURAM VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673504 ``` Crl.M.C.No.1546 of 2025 -: 2 :- **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:21947 ``` ``` BY ADVS. M.P.PRIYESHKUMAR MUHAMMAD ALI E.K. ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031`** - **`2 ABDULLA HAJI AGED 67 YEARS S/O MOIDU,MADATHIL HOUSE, LYYAMKODE P.O, NADAPURAM VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673504`** - **`3 JAMEELA, AGED 59 YEARS`** ``` MO ABDULLA HAJI, MADATHIL HOUSE, LYYAMKODE P.O, NADAPURAM VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673504 ``` ``` BY ADVS. DIVYA T.P. SANAL P.RAJ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` Crl.M.C.No.1546 of 2025 -: 3 :- **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:21947 ``` ## **O R D E R** A five Judges Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in _**Kulwinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another**_ [(2007) 4 CTC 769], framed broad guidelines as regards quashment of the criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code in respect of offences which are not compoundable in terms of Section 320 of the Code. One among the guidelines was that the offences against human body, other than murder and culpable homicide, may be permitted to be compounded, when the court is in a position to record a finding that the settlement between the parties is voluntary and fair. These guidelines were quoted with approval by a three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in _**Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another**_ [(2012) 10 SCC 303]. Similarly in _**Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab**_ [(2014) 6 SCC 466], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has gone to the extent of sanctioning invocation of the inherent power under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the F.I.R in a crime alleging offence under Section 307, which is a henious and serious offence. A practical approach Crl.M.C.No.1546 of 2025 -: 4 :- **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:21947 ``` is seen adopted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in _**Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab**_ [(2008) 4 SCC 582] as regards quashment in respect of offences like 379, 406, 409, 418, etc., the relevant findings of which are extracted here below: _“6. We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.”_ **2.** In the facts at hand, petitioners are the accused nos.1 to 3 and 5 in Crime No.766 of 2020 of Nadapuram Police Station, Kozhikode, now pending as C.C.No.633/2021 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nadapuram. As per the Final Report, the offences alleged are under Sections Crl.M.C.No.1546 of 2025 -: 5 :- **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 143, 147, 148, 341, 323 and 324, read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners seek quashment of entire proceedings in the above Calendar Case, on the strength of the settlement arrived at by and between the parties. **3.** Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners; learned counsel for the 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records. **4.** When this Crl.M.C was moved, this Court directed to record the statement of the defacto complainant. The said direction was complied and the statements of the defacto complainant/2[nd] respondent and injured/3[rd] respondent were handed over. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the issues between the petitioners, the defacto complainant and the 3[rd] respondent are settled and that they are no longer interested to continue with the prosecution case. That apart, it is noticed that, along with this Crl.M.C, affidavits have been sworn to by the defacto complainant and Crl.M.C.No.1546 of 2025 -: 6 :- **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:21947 ``` the 3[rd] respondent as Annexures-C and D, wherein they would unequivocally state that the disputes have been settled out of the Court and that they have no grievance against the petitioners. They would also swear that they have no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners and that the affidavits are sworn to on their own volition. Moreover, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 would submit that the quashment sought for can be allowed in view of the settlement arrived at. This Court is therefore convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine and bonafide. **5.** In the light of the above referred facts, this Court is of the opinion that the necessary parameters, as culled out in _**Narinder Singh**_ (supra), _**Madan Mohan Abbot**_ (supra) and _**Gian Singh**_ (supra), are fully satisfied. This court is convinced that further proceedings against the petitioners will be a futile exercise, inasmuch as the disputes have already been settled. There is little possibility of any conviction in the crime. _Dehors_ the settlement arrived at by Crl.M.C.No.1546 of 2025 **==> picture [212 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:21947 ``` and between the parties, if they are compelled to face the criminal proceedings, the same, in the estimation of this Court, will amount to abuse of process of Court. The quashment sought for would secure the ends of justice. This Court also notice that offences under Sections 341 and 323 are compoundable, which is all the more a reason to accept the compromise between the parties. **6.** In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-B Final Report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.633/2021 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nadapuram, are hereby quashed. The 4[th] accused is no more, wherefore, the case against him will stand abated. Sd/- **C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE** ww Crl.M.C.No.1546 of 2025 -: 8 :- **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:21947 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1546/2025`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ``` ``` ANNEXURE ACERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR ALONG WITH FIS IN CRIME NO.766/2020 OF NADAPURAM POLICE STATION ``` ``` ANNEXURE BCERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC 633/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, NADAPURAM ANNEXURE CTHE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 17.12.2024 ANNEXURE DTHE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 17.12.2024 ```