High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-04-23Order quashing all further proceedings; case di...

CRL.M.C. No. 3171 of 2024

Case / Petition Number:CRL.M.C. No.3171 of 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2024-04-23
Court Decision / Holding: This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. All further proceedings in Crime No.121/2024 of Kuttiady Police Station are quashed.
Final Disposition: Order quashing all further proceedings; case disposed in favour of the petitioners.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

AMEGH
GOKHUL
ABHIRAM P. R
SANOOJ
SEEMANTH
SARUNKUMAR

Respondents

The Sub Inspector of Police Kuttiady Police Station, Kozhikode Rural
The State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Vishnu K. C., aged 24 years, S/O. Vas u, Kuzhichalil House, Cherapuram Amsoom Desom, Poolakkool PO, Kalpakkad Village/KOzhikode (as the victim)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Ann Susan George

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. P.M. Rafiq – R3
• Smt. Sheeba Thomas, Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case was filed under Section 482 CrPC to quash the ongoing proceedings in Crime No. 121/2024 of Kuttiady Police Station, Kozhikode Rural. The petitioners – six accused in a case arising from an incident at the Calicut University Academic Fest at Mokeri Government College – faced offences under Sections 341, 323, 324 read with 149 IPC for restraining and assaulting the defacto complainant while his supposed SFI followers were resisting them. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated that the dispute between the parties has been settled and that the victim has submitted an affidavit supporting quashing, with no objection to discontinue the prosecution. The State, through the Public Prosecutor, expressed reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement but conceded that settlement exists. The court relied on the Supreme Court’s framework in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan (2019) (5) SCC 688, which in turn relies on Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, holding that 482 CrPC power may be exercised to quash non‑compoundable offences where the dispute is private, the entire dispute is resolved, and the public interest does not require continued prosecution. After examination, the court found the dispute private, the settlement genuine, and allowed the Crl.M.C., quashing all further proceedings against petitioners. The order ends the criminal proceedings in this case.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 CrPCSection 320 IPCSection 341 IPCSection 323 IPCSection 324 IPCSection 149 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Quashing of non‑compoundable offences under Section 482 CrPC can be invoked when the dispute is civil/private, the entire dispute is resolved, and there is no public interest in continuation; however, such power is not to be exercised for heinous offences (e.g., murder, rape, dacoity).
Not to quash offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or offences by public servants merely on the basis of compromise.
Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act are considered heinous and cannot be quashed on settlement as they affect society at large; the High Court may examine the nature of evidence after investigation and charge framing.
In quashing, the High Court may consider the antecedents of the accused, their conduct, whether they were absconding, and how the compromise was reached.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that the entire dispute between the parties is private in nature and has been settled amicably. The victim has sworn an affidavit supporting quashing and has no objection to the prosecution being quashed. Relying on the Supreme Court’s Laxmi Narayan framework (and the decisions of Gian Singh and Narinder Singh), they contend that a quashing order under Section 482 CrPC is appropriate when non‑compoundable offences arising from a private dispute have been settled, where continued prosecution would not serve the public interest and would instead harm private reconciliation. The petition argues that the offences (Sections 341, 323, 324 r/w 149 IPC) are not heinous and do not affect public safety beyond the private sphere, and the settled matter justifies quashing to conserve judicial economy and ease tensions between parties.

Contentions of Respondents

The State, through counsel, acknowledges the settlement but cautions that quashing on the basis of a mere settlement may be inappropriate in many cases, particularly where non‑compoundable offences are involved. The Public Prosecutor expresses reservations but concedes that the parties have settled and that the material facts appear to justify exercise of the court’s discretion under 482 CrPC if the settled dispute has resolved the entire controversy. The respondents emphasize that the screening of the evidence and the possibility of misuses must be considered, and that the court should ensure that the compromise is genuine, not a cover for evasion of accountability.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others	2019 (5) SCC 688	Positive	Supreme Court framework permitting quashing of non‑compoundable offences in private disputes when the dispute is settled and public interest is not affected.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another	2012 (10) SCC 303	Positive	Cited as part of the law on 482 CrPC quashing in settled private disputes.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another	2014 (6) SCC 466	Positive	Cited in the Laxmi Narayan framework as part of the jurisprudence on quashing non‑compoundable offences in private disputes.

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. 3171 of 2024 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 TUESDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 3RD VAISAKHA, 1946 CRL.MC NO. 3171 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.121/2024 OF KUTTIYADI POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 6:** - **1 AMEGH AGED 21 YEARS** - **S/O. MOHANAN, VADAKKEPARAMBATH HOUSE, MOKERI P. O., KAKKATTIL VIA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673507** - **2 GOKHUL AGED 23 YEARS** - **S/O. HAJEESH, KUNDUKULANGARA HOUSE, MOKERI P. O., KAKKATTIL VIA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673507** - **3 ABHIRAM P. R AGED 25 YEARS** - **S/O. RAMESHAN, PARATTEEMMAL HOUSE, MOKERI P. O., KAKKATTIL VIA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673507** - **4 SANOOJ AGED 22 YEARS S/O. SAJEEVAN, ANOREMMAL HOUSE, MOKERI P. O., KAKKATTIL VIA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673507** - **5 SEEMANTH AGED 24 YEARS** - **S/O. RAVEENDRAN, MALANCHERI HOUSE, MOKERI P. O., KAKKATTIL VIA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673507** - **6 SARUNKUMAR AGED 22 YEARS** - **S/O. PREMKUMAR, MALAPARAMBATH HOUSE, CHEMMARATHOOR, KOTTAPPALLY P. O., KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673104** **BY ADV ANN SUSAN GEORGE** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:** - **1 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KUTTIADY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE RURAL,** Crl.M.C. No.3171 of 2024 2 ## **PIN - 673508** - **2 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031** - **3 VISHNU K. C AGED 24 YEARS S/O. VASU, KUZHICHALIL HOUSE, CHERAPURAM AMSOM DESOM, POOLAKKOOL P. O., VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673507** **BY ADV. SRI. P.M RAFIQ – R3** **SMT. SHEEBA THOMAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Crl.M.C. No.3171 of 2024 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** ## **-------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.3171 of 2024** **---------------------------------------------Dated this the 23[rd] day of April, 2024** ## **O R D E R** This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for the sake of brevity). 2. This Crl.M.C is filed to quash all further proceedings in Crime No.121/2024 of Kuttiady Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Section 341, 323, 324 r/w 149 IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that, on 01.03.2024 at 10 p.m., while the Calicut University Academic Fest was being conducted at the Mokeri Government College, the defacto complainant on seeing the attempt of the accused persons to defame his women SFI followers, Crl.M.C. No.3171 of 2024 4 went to restrain them. At that point of time, accused Nos.1 to 3 along with three other identifiable accused restrained him and beat him with hands and iron rod and thereby caused injuries to the victim. 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. 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. Crl.M.C. No.3171 of 2024 5 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 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_ Crl.M.C. No.3171 of 2024 6 _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 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,_ Crl.M.C. No.3171 of 2024 7 _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 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 Crime No.121/2024 of Kuttiady Police Station are quashed. _Sd/-_ **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** DM Crl.M.C. No.3171 of 2024 8 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3171/2024** ## **PETITIONER ANNEXURES** **ANNEXURE.I** **THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO. 121 / 2024 OF KUTTIADY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE RURAL** **ANNEXURE.II THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 27.03.2024. SWORN IN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT** **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **PA TO JUDGE**