Criminal Miscellaneous Cases: Crl.M.C. Nos. 8378/2023 and 8350/2023 (connected)

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 15[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 24TH KARTHIKA, 1945 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 8378 OF 2023 ``` ``` CRIME NO.241/2018 OF Vengara Police Station, Malappuram AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC 1492/2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, MALAPPURAM ``` ## **`PETITIONERS / ACCUSED:`** - `1 SAYOOF, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. SAIDALAVI, KEERI HOUSE, MEMMATTUPARA, KANNAMANGALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676318` - `2 ABDUL AZEES, AGED 44 YEARS S/O. SAIDALAVI, KEERI HOUSE, MEMMATTUPARA, KANNAMANGALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676318` - `3 KHALID, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. SAIDALAVI, KEERI HOUSE, MEMMATTUPARA, KANNAMANGALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676318` - `BY ADV K.RAKESH` ## **`RESPONDENTS /STATE & COMPLAINANT:`** - `1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031` - `2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VENGARA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676304` - `3 FIROZ, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. ALAVIKUTTY, KADAKKOTTIRI HOUSE, KANNAMANGALAM AMSOM DESOM, MEMATTUPARA, KANNAMANGALAM POST, VENGARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676318` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` SRI RENJITH TR, PP ADV.KIRAN THOMAS ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.11.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.8350/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2 Crl.MC 8378 & 8350 of 2023 # **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 15[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 24TH KARTHIKA, ``` ``` 1945 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 8350 OF 2023 ``` ``` CRIME NO.242/2018 OF Vengara Police Station, Malappuram AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC 1545/2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, MALAPPURAM ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED:`** ``` FIROZ, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. ALAVIKUTTY, KADAKKOTTIRI HOUSE, KANNAMANGALAM AMSOM DESOM, MEMATTUPARA, KANNAMANGALAM POST, VENGARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676318 BY ADV KIRAN THOMAS ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:`** - `1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031` - `2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VENGARA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676304` ``` 3SAYOOF, AGED 49 YEARS S/O. SAITHALAVI, AGED 49 YEARS, KANNAMANGALAM AMSOM DESOM, MEMATTUPARA, KANNAMANGALAM POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676318 ``` ``` ADV.RENJITH T R, PP ADV.K RAKESH ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ``` ``` ON 15.11.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.8378/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 3 Crl.MC 8378 & 8350 of 2023 **P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------Crl.M.C.Nos.8378 and 8350 of 2023 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 15[th] day of November, 2023** ## **COMMON ORDER** These two Criminal Miscellaneous Cases are connected and therefore I am disposing of these cases by a common order. Crl.M.C.No.8350/2023 is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1545/2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram arising from Crime No.242/2018 of Vengara Police Station, Malappuram. Crl.M.C.No.8378/2023 is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1492/2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram arising from Crime No.241/2018 of Vengara Police Station, Malappuram. 2. It is submitted that these are case and counter case and both cases are settled and both parties have no grievance. 3. 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 affidavits filed by the victims in support of their contention. The counsel appearing for the victims also submitted that the matter is settled and the victims 4 Crl.MC 8378 & 8350 of 2023 have no objection in quashing the prosecution. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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 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 -_ 5 Crl.MC 8378 & 8350 of 2023 _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 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_ 6 Crl.MC 8378 & 8350 of 2023 _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 noncompoundable 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.”_ 7. 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, these Crl.M.Cs are allowed in the following manner: (i) Crl.M.C.No.8378/2023 is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.1492/2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram arising from Crime No.241/2018 of Vengara Police Station, Malappuram are quashed. (ii) Crl.M.C.No.8350/2023 is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner in 7 Crl.MC 8378 & 8350 of 2023 C.C.No.1545/2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram arising from Crime No.242/2018 of Vengara Police Station, Malappuram are quashed. Sd/- **P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** Sbna/ 8 Crl.MC 8378 & 8350 of 2023 ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 8350/2023`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure AA CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.242/2018 OF THE VENGARA POLICE STATION Annexure BAFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED, 30-9-2023 ``` 9 Crl.MC 8378 & 8350 of 2023 ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 8378/2023`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure AA CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.241/2018 OF THE VENGARA POLICE STATION DATED, 12-12-2018 Annexure BAFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED, 30-9-2023 ```