High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeThe Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed; all...

CRL.M.C. No. 6876 of 2023

Case / Petition Number:CRL. M.C. No. 6876 of 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date
2023-09-25
Court Decision / Holding
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed; all further proceedings in CC 955/2022 initiated by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ponnani, arising from Crime No. 780/2022, Changaramkulam Police Station, are quashed.
Final Disposition
The Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed; all further proceedings in CC 955/2022 are quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Ameer Abbas
  • Sirajudheen
  • Muhammed Aslam
  • Vinod Kumar

Respondents

  • Ashique A.A.
  • The State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • K.R.Avinash (Kunnath)
  • • Abdul Raoof Pallipath
  • • Prajit Ratnakaran
  • • Krishnapriya R.

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri. Renjith T.R., PP
  • • Sri. Abdul Rasac

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 CrPC concerns four accused challenging the continuation of prosecution in C.C. No. 955/2022 arising from Crime No. 780/2022 of Changaramkulam Police Station. The charges include sections 342, 232, 324, 326, 365, 201 and 451 read with 34 IPC. The case stems from a dispute between the accused and the de facto complainant Ashique A.A., with the parties reportedly reaching a settlement and no longer wishing to pursue the proceedings. The victim’s affidavit and the desire to quash are supported by the petitioners, while the officer of prosecution expresses reservations about quashing solely on the basis of compromise, though acknowledges the settlement. The court examined the settled dispute in light of jurisprudence culminating in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others, which recognises power under Section 482 CrPC to quash non-compoundable offences in private disputes where the parties have resolved the entire matter; subject to carve-outs for heinous offences and offences under special statutes. The court also cited Gian Singh and Narinder Singh counsel, and held that the private nature of the dispute and the lack of public interest factors justified quashing. Consequently, the petition was allowed and all further proceedings against the petitioners in CC 955/2022 were quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 CrPCSections 342, 232, 324, 326, 365, 201 and 451 read with 34 IPCSection 320 IPCSection 307 IPCArms Act (referenced in context)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Power under Section 482 CrPC to quash non‑compoundable offences in private disputes where the entire dispute is settled, as laid down in Laxmi Narayan and relied upon in subsequent decisions (Gian Singh; Narinder Singh)
  • Non-quashability of heinous offences and public-interest crimes under 482 CrPC, guiding the carve-outs for serious offences
  • Consideration of antecedents and conduct of the accused when exercising 482 CrPC in private settlements

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that the dispute was private, has been amicably settled, and the victim supports quashing of the prosecution. With affidavits backing settlement and mutual consent, and the State Prosecutor acknowledging settlement, they urged exercise of the inherent power under S.482 CrPC to quash non‑compoundable offences, especially since the offences arise from civil/family disputes and do not impact public justice.

Contentions of Respondents

The State, through counsel, expressed reservations about quashing solely on the basis of a compromise but conceded that the matter is settled. The Respondents urged that quashing should be exercised with caution, balancing private settlement against public interest and the seriousness of the offences; emphasized that private settlements are not a blanket justification for quashing where heinous, grave, or public-law offences may be involved.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others2019 (5) SCC 688PositiveReferenced as the leading three-judge ruling outlining when 482 CrPC can quash non‑compoundable offences arising from private settlements, with exceptions for heinous/public offences.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another2012 (10) SCC 303PositiveCited in support of the Laxmi Narayan framework; used to explain the nature and scope of quashing in private disputes.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another2014 (6) SCC 466PositiveCited to harmonize and elaborate the admissible scope of quashing in the context of private settlements.

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. 6876 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 MONDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 3RD ASWINA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 6876 OF 2023 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 955/2022 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PONNANI ``` ## **`PETITIONERS / ACCUSED:`** ``` 1AMEER ABBAS AGED 23 YEARS S/O NOUSHAD, RESIDING AT KARUVATTAYIL HOUSE, KANJIYOOR, MOOKKUTHALA.P.O, MALAPPURAM DIST, PIN - 679574 2SIRAJUDHEEN AGED 25 YEARS S/O MUHAMMED KUTTY, RESIDING AT PUTHUMANA VALAPPIL HOUSE, PERUMUMUKKU, ALAMKODE.P.O, MALAPPURAM DIST, PIN - 679585 3MUHAMMED ASLAM AGED 22 YEARS S/O ASHRAF, RESIDING AT VELAKKAT HOUSE, KANJIYOOR, MOOKKKUTHALA.P.O, MALAPPURAM DIST, PIN - 679574 4VINOD KUMAR AGED 36 YEARS S/O KRISHNAN, RESIDING AT ARIMUGHATH HOUSE, KANJIYOOR, MOOKKKUTHALA.P.O, MALAPPURAM DIST, PIN - 679574 ``` ``` BY ADVS. K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH PRAJIT RATNAKARAN KRISHNAPRIYA R. ``` ``` CRL. M.C. NO.6876 OF 2023 ``` 2 ## **`RESPONDENTS / DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND STATE:`** ``` 1ASHIQUE A.A. AGED 20 YEARS S/O ABDULLAKUTTY, RESIDING AT ARAYKKAL HOUSE, PAVITTAPPURAM, OTHALUR P.O, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679591 ``` ``` 2THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 ``` ``` BY ADVS. ``` ``` SRI. RENJITH T.R., PP SRI. ABDUL RASAC ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` CRL. M.C. NO.6876 OF 2023 ``` 3 **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------Crl.M.C. No. 6876 of 2023 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 25[th] day of September, 2023** ## **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. The petitioners are the accused in C.C. No.955/2022 on the files of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Ponnani, arising from Crime No.780/2022 of Changaramkulam Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offenses punishable under Sections 342, 232, 324, 326, 365, 201 and 451 r/w 34 of IPC. 4 ``` CRL. M.C. NO.6876 OF 2023 ``` 3. The prosecution case is that the accused persons assaulted the victim and committed the other offences also. 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 5 ``` CRL. M.C. NO.6876 OF 2023 ``` the petitioners, victim and the Public Prosecutor and has also gone through the records including the affidavit filed by the victims. 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 ``` CRL. M.C. NO.6876 OF 2023 ``` 6 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 ``` CRL. M.C. NO.6876 OF 2023 ``` 7 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 ``` CRL. M.C. NO.6876 OF 2023 ``` 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 against the petitioners in C.C. No. 955/2022 on the files of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Ponnani, arising from Crime No.780/2022 of Changaramkulam Police Station, are quashed. Sd/- nvj ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** ``` CRL. M.C. NO.6876 OF 2023 ``` 9 ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6876/2023`** ## `PETITIONER ANNEXURES` ``` ANNEXURE 1THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO: 780 /2022 OF CHANGARAMKULAM POLICE STATION ANNEXURE 2THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT ALOMG WITH STATEMENTS OF WITNESSES INCRIMENO:780/2022OF CHANGARAMKULAMPOLICESTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - PONNANI ANNEXURE 3THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 10.08.2023 SWORN BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT ``` RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS :NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE