High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed

Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 5158 of 2023 (Crl.M.C. No.5158 of 2023)

Case / Petition Number:CRL.M.C. No.5158 of 2023
Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J.
Judgment Date
2023-09-21
Court Decision / Holding
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in S.C.Nos.368/2017 & 368/2021 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court - III, Manjeri arising from Crime No.105/2006 of Perumpadappu Police Station are quashed.
Final Disposition
Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Munas
  • Siraj

Respondents

  • The State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
  • Station House Officer, Perumpadappa Police Station, Malappuram District
  • Suneer Kereth

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • P.C. Muhammed Noushiq

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Renjith TR, PP

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case filed under Section 482 CrPC by Munas and Siraj, accused in SC Nos. 368/2017 and 368/2021 arising from Crime No. 105/2006 of Perumpadappu Police Station, Malappuram. The petition seeks quashing of proceedings for offences including 143, 147, 148, 323, 326 and 308 r/w 149 IPC, on the grounds that the dispute between the parties is private and has been settled, with the victim expressing no objection. The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, initially voiced reservations about quashing solely on the basis of a settlement, but ultimately conceded the matter is settled. The judgment relies on Supreme Court precedents—State of Madhya Pradesh v Laxmi Narayan and Others, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab—with emphasis on the settled, private nature of the dispute and the need to assess whether quashing would undermine society at large. After examining the facts and the victim’s affidavit, the court held that the dispute is private, the settlement is acceptable, and the criminal proceedings are quashed, thereby terminating further action against the petitioners."

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Section 320 IPCSections 143, 147, 148, 323, 326, 308 r/w 149 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Power under Section 482 CrPC to quash non-compoundable offences where disputes are private and settled
  • Non-quashability of heinous/offences of serious public impact from private settlements (e.g., offences under special statutes, like Prevention of Corruption Act, or those by public servants)
  • Circumstances permitting quashing at private, civil- nature disputes after evidence is collected (Narinder Singh guidance); harmonization with Laxmi Narayan doctrine
  • Antecedents and conduct of accused to be considered when exercising 482 CrPC power

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submitted that the parties have resolved their dispute amicably; the affidavit of the victim supports settlement with no objection to quashing the proceedings. They argued that, under Section 482 CrPC, quashing is permissible for non‑compoundable offences when the dispute is private, the conduct of the parties is peaceful, and there is no threat to public order. The defence counsel stressed the settled nature of the dispute and the need to avoid protracted proceedings, especially where the accused have already faced portions of the case or related judgments.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor acknowledged the settlement but argued caution, noting that quashing should not undermine serious offences or public interest. He relied on established jurisprudence to ensure that non‑compoundable offences with private resolution may be quashed only when the case involves private disputes and there is no ongoing threat to society; records and victim’s affidavit were to be considered to assess the viability of quashing.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
State of Madhya Pradesh v Laxmi Narayan and Others2019 (5) SCC 688PositiveThree-judge bench described the scope of Section 482 for quashing non‑compoundable/private disputes and approved settlement-based quashing in appropriate cases.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another2012 (10) SCC 303PositiveCited as part of the jurisprudence on when quashing may be allowed in non‑compoundable offences in light of settlements.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another2014 (6) SCC 466PositiveQuoted for the principle that the court may assess the nature of the offence and the stage of investigation before exercising 482 CrPC powers; settlement considerations are guided by such rules.

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 Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 5158 of 2023 (Crl.M.C. No.5158 of 2023) 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 THURSDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 30TH BHADRA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 5158 OF 2023** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT SC 368/2017 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - III, MANJERI / III ADDITIONAL MACT,** ## **MANJERI** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.5 & 7:** 1 MUNAS AGED 36 YEARS S/O. KUNHIMUHAMMED.T, THOPPIL HOUSE, VELIYANCODE VIA, PALAPPETTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679579 2 SIRAJ AGED 43 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMEDALI, KODIKUTHIVEEDU, AYINDHAR AMSOM, PALAPPETTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679579 BY ADV P.C.MUHAMMED NOUSHIQ ## **– RESPONDENTS/STATE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & ALLEGED VICTIM:** 1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER PERUMPADAPPA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679580 3 SUNEER KERETH AGED 42 YEARS S/O. ABDU, PALAPETTY P.O, PUTHIYIRUTHI, AYIROOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679579 BY ADV.SRI.RENJITH TR PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.No.5158 of 2023 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** **------------------------------** **Crl.M.C.No.5158 of 2023** **---------------------------------------------Dated this the 21[st] day of September, 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 S.C.Nos.368/2017 & 368/2021 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court - III, Manjeri arising from Crime No.105/2006 of Perumpadappu Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 326, 308 r/w 149 IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused Crl.M.C.No.5158 of 2023 3 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, attacked the victim which resulted in grievous hurt to the victim and thereby committed the above said offences. It is submitted that the 9[th] accused was already acquitted as per Annexure A2 judgment. 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 victim in support of his contention. The counsel appearing for the victim also 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 Crl.M.C.No.5158 of 2023 4 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 _**Laxmi**_ Crl.M.C.No.5158 of 2023 5 ## _**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 the ground that the parties_ Crl.M.C.No.5158 of 2023 6 _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 Crl.M.C.No.5158 of 2023 7 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 against the petitioners in S.C.Nos.368/2017 & 368/2021 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court - III, Manjeri arising from Crime No.105/2006 of Perumpadappu Police Station are quashed. DM Sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** Crl.M.C.No.5158 of 2023 8 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5158/2023** PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT ALONG WITH MEMORANDUM OF EVIDENCE IN CRIME NO. 105 OF 2006 OF PERUMBADAPPA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN S.C. NO. 478 OF 2012 PASSED BY ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-III, MANJERI ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.11.2014 IN CRL MC NO. 6688 OF 2014 ON THE FILES OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA ANNEXURE A4 AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY RESPONDENT NO. 3 DATED 13.04.2023 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS :NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE