Crl.M.C. No. 3253 of 2022

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH TUESDAY, THE 2[ND] DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 3253 OF 2022** **CRIME NO.1133/2015 OF Vatakara Police Station, Kozhikode CP 40/2021 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,** ## **VATAKARA** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED Nos.1,2,4,7,8 & 9:** 1 MUHAMMED ADIL AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.ASEES, RESIDING AT KOKKENAKANDY HOUSE, AVALA P.O, CHERUVANNUR, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673524 2 MUHAMMED RAYEES AGED 26 YEARS S/O ABDUL RASHEED, RESIDING AT AMBALATHU MANNIL HOUSE, AVALA P.O, CHERUVANNUR, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673524 3 MANSOOR AGED 38 YEARS S/O MOOSA, MEETHALE VAYALOLIL HOUSE, THODANNUR P.O, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673541 4 ALTHAF AGED 27 YEARS S/O KUNHABDULLA, RESIDING AT CHALIL HOUSE, AVALA P.O, CHERUVANNUR, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673524 5 ASIR AGED 27 YEARS S/O ASEES, RESIDING AT CHALIL HOUSE, AVALA P.O, CHERUVANNUR, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673524 Crl.M.C.No.3253/2022 -:2:- 6 BASITH @ ABDUL BASITH AGED 26 YEARS S/O KUNHABDULLA, RESIDING AT MANAMAL HOUSE, AVALA P.O, CHERUVANNUR, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673524 BY ADV MITHUN P. ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE, DE FACTO COMPLAINANT & INJURED:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULUM, PIN - 682031 2 ANOOP AGED 30 YEARS S/O BABU, RESIDING AT MADAVAN POTTAYIL HOUSE, ALAVA P.O, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673524 3 JASMIN AGED 29 YEARS D/O HAMSA, RESIDING AT THEYYATHANKANDI HOUSE, CHERUSSERY ROAD, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673104 BY ADV HARISHMA P. THAMPI **OTHER PRESENT : SMT.T.V.NEEMA SR. Public Prosecutor** THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.No.3253/2022 -:3:- ## **O R D E R** This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure-A1 Final Report in Crime No.1133/2015 of Vatakara Police Station on the ground of settlement between the parties. 2. Altogether, there are nine accused. The petitioners are the accused Nos.1, 2, 4, 7, 8 and 9. The 2[nd] respondent is the de facto complainant. The 3[rd] respondent is the injured. 3. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 308 read with Section 149 of the IPC. 4. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 entered appearance through counsel. Affidavits sworn in by them are produced as Annexures-A2 and A3. 5. I have heard Sri.Mithun.P, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt.Harishma P. Thampi, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Smt.T.V.Neema, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 6. The averments in the petition as well as the affidavits sworn in by the 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents would show that the entire dispute between the accused Nos.1, 2, 4, 7, 8 and 9 with Crl.M.C.No.3253/2022 -:4:- the de facto complainant has been amicably settled and the de facto complainant has decided not to proceed with the crime against the accused Nos.1, 2, 4, 7, 8 and 9 further. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instruction, submits that the matter was inquired into through the investigating officer, and a statement of the de facto complainant was also recorded wherein he reported that the dispute with the accused Nos.1, 2, 4, 7, 8 and 9 was amicably settled. 7. The Apex Court in _**Gian Singh v. State of Punjab**_ [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)], _**Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others**_ [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and _**State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others**_ [(2019) 5 SCC 688] has held that the High Court invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C can quash criminal proceedings in relation to non-compoundable offence where the parties have settled the matter between themselves notwithstanding the bar under S.320 of Cr.P.C. if it is warranted in the given facts and circumstances of the case or to ensure ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court. Crl.M.C.No.3253/2022 -:5:- 8. It is true that the settlement was arrived at between the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the accused Nos. 1, 2, 4, 7, 8 and 9 alone who are the petitioners. Hence, the question is whether the FIR/Final Report against some of the accused alone could be quashed on the ground of settlement invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C. The Apex Court _in_ _**Lovely Salhotra and Another v. State NCT of Delhi and Another**_ [(2018) 12 SCC 391] quashed the proceedings against one of the accused alone, invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C. That was a case where the High Court refused to quash the proceeding holding that the FIR cannot be quashed in part. True, in the said case, the Apex Court had taken into account the facts of the case that no cognizable offence was made out. The Apex Court, on facts, also found that no offence was made out against the appellant/accused therein. However, the principle that could be deduced from the dictum laid down in the said decision is that it is not impermissible to quash the FIR _qua_ some of the accused alone, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. This Court in **S** _**ajeev & Another v. State of Kerala and another**_ (2022 (3) KHC 69) has held that it is permissible to Crl.M.C.No.3253/2022 -:6:- quash the proceedings against some of the accused alone on the ground of settlement depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted that as the dispute between the petitioners and the respondent Nos.2 and 3 is amicably settled and that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have no objection whatsoever if the final report is quashed only against the petitioners. The dispute in the above case is purely personal in nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A1 final report in Crime No.1133/2015 of Vatakara Police Station as against the petitioners. The offences in question do not fall within the category of offences prohibited for compounding in terms of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in _**Gian Singh**_ (supra), _**Narinder Singh**_ (supra) and _**Laxmi Narayan**_ (supra). For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that no purpose will be served in proceeding with the matter further. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings in Crl.M.C.No.3253/2022 -:7:- Crime No.1133/2015 of Vatakara Police Station as against the petitioners/accused Nos.1, 2, 4, 7, 8 and 9 alone stand hereby quashed. Sd/- **DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE** skj Crl.M.C.No.3253/2022 -:8:- ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3253/2022** PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL CHARGE IN CRIME NO:1133 OF 2015 OF VATAKARA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT Annexure A2 AFFIDAVIT DATED 10.05.2022, SOLEMNLY AFFIRMED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/ DE FACTO COMPLAINANT Annexure A3 AFFIDAVIT DATED 10.05.2022, SOLEMNLY AFFIRMED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT/ INJURED