High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed

Crl.M.C No. 2705 of 2023

Case / Petition Number:CRL.M.C NO. 2705 OF 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date
2023-09-08
Court Decision / Holding
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in CC 105/2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram arising from Crime No.361/2019 are quashed.
Final Disposition
Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Mohammed Fais M.
  • Harikrishnan
  • Ramees
  • Sujith

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
  • Shahulhameed S/o Saidalavi

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Adv Sunil N. Shenoi

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Adv. Vipin Narayan, PP

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C. No. 2705 of 2023) is before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash CC No.105/2020 arising from Crime No.361/2019 registered at Malappuram Police Station. The petitioners, four accused, are alleged to have committed offences under Sections 143, 147, 341, 323 and 506 read with Section 149 IPC, in connection with an incident at MCT Law College, Alathurpadi, wherein the defacto complainant and others were allegedly restrained and assaulted. The petitioners contend that the parties have resolved the entire dispute by settlement, supported by the victim’s affidavit, and that there is no object to quashing the prosecution. The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, expresses reservations about quashing purely on settlement but concedes that a settlement exists between the parties. The Court cites three-judge Supreme Court decisions—State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) 5 SCC 688; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another (2012) 10 SCC 303; Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another (2014) 6 SCC 466—to outline the scope and limits of the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash non-compoundable offences when the dispute is private and settled. After reviewing the records and the victim’s affidavit, the court concludes the dispute is private in nature and the settlement is valid, hence allows the petition, quashing all further proceedings in CC No.105/2020 and related Crime No.361/2019.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of CrPCSection 320 of IPCSection 143 IPCSection 147 IPCSection 341 IPCSection 323 IPCSection 506 r/w 149 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Power under Section 482 CrPC to quash non-compoundable offences in private disputes after settlement, as laid down in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) 5 SCC 688; reliance on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab and others (2012/2014 SCC) for guidelines and limitations.
  • Not to exercise 482 CrPC quashing for heinous/serious offences or offences under special statutes; open to examination of facts, evidence, and the nature of the offence to determine if charge under Section 307 IPC, Arms Act, etc., is genuinely applicable.
  • Settlement between victim and offender can form basis to quash non-compoundable offences in private disputes, subject to antecedents of the accused and nature of the offence.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that the dispute between the parties has been settled and they do not wish to continue the prosecution. They rely on an affidavit from the victim supporting the settlement and contends that quashing the proceedings would be just and proper in the backdrop of private dispute and civil character of the dispute.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor expresses reservations about quashing sole upon settlement but concedes that the matter is settled and contends that the court should examine the facts and law to determine if quashing would be appropriate, noting that some offences are not private or non-compoundable.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others2019 (5) SCC 688PositiveCourt relies on the Laxmi Narayan decision to hold that Section 482 CrPC can be used to quash non-compoundable offences in private disputes when the entire dispute is settled.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another2012 (10) SCC 303PositiveCited as part of the chain of precedents underpinning the scope of quashing powers in private settlements.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another2014 (6) SCC 466PositiveReferenced in conjunction with Laxmi Narayan to explain limits and application of 482 CrPC in non-compoundable offences.

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 Crl.M.C No. 2705 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 FRIDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 17TH BHADRA, 1945** **CRL.MC NO. 2705 OF 2023** **CRIME NO.361/2019 OF Malappuram Police Station, Malappuram AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 105/2020 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF** ## **FIRST CLASS ,MALAPPURAM** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4:** 1 MOHAMMED FAIS M., AGED 26 YEARS S/O. BASHEER MANGARATHODI (H), VALIYANGADI MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679332 2 HARIKRISHNAN AGED 25 YEARS S/O. VINOD HARISHREE, TIRUMANGIKARA, THRIKLANGODU, MANJERI MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676121 3 RAMEES AGED 25 YEARS S/O. IBRAHIM, EDALADI (H), MUGAPARA MANJERI, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676121 4 SUJITH AGED 26 YEARS, S/O,SUBRAN CHEMBUKATTIL (H), VALAD P.O THALAPUZHA, WAYANAD, PIN - 670644 BY ADV SUNIL N.SHENOI ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 SHAHULHAMEED S/O SAIDALAVI RESIDING AT KARUMANATH HOUSE, Crl.M.C.No.2705 of 2023 **==> picture [6 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** CHIRAYIL P.O, KONDOTTY, MELEPARAMBU MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 673638 BY ADV. SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN, PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.No.2705 of 2023 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** **------------------------------** **Crl.M.C.No.2705 of 2023 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 08[th] 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 CC No.105/2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram arising from Crime No.361/2019 of Malappuram Police Station. The above case is charge sheeted against the petitioners and others alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 323, 506 r/w 149 of the IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that the defacto Crl.M.C.No.2705 of 2023 4 complainant and accused were students of MCT Law College, Alathurpadi and the accused and other identifiable persons wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and attacked him. 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 that the matter is settled between the parties. Crl.M.C.No.2705 of 2023 5 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 Narayan**_ 's case discussed the law in detail and the same is extracted Crl.M.C.No.2705 of 2023 6 ## 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 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_ Crl.M.C.No.2705 of 2023 7 _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 apex court, this court perused the facts in this case and also perused the documents produced by Crl.M.C.No.2705 of 2023 8 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 CC No.105/2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram arising from Crime No.361/2019 of Malappuram Police Station are quashed. DM Sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** Crl.M.C.No.2705 of 2023 9 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2705/2023** PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A 1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO: 361/2019 OF MALAPPURAM POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT ANNEXURE A 2 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO: 361/2019 OF MALAPPURAM POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT ANNEXURE3 AN AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 1ST DAY JULY 2022 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS :NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE