High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeCriminal Misc. Case allowed; proceedings in C.C...

Crl.M.C. No. 7566 of 2023 – Jithin T., Ashwanth Asok, Harish Maharoof, Vyshak vs. State of Kerala and Sai Swaroop; Muhammed Arshad

Case / Petition Number:CRL.M.C.No.7566 of 2023
Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
Judgment Date
2023-10-26
Court Decision / Holding
The Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. All further proceedings in C.C.No.419/2022, Kalamassery, arising from Crime No. 430/2022, are quashed. The court held that the private settlement and the absence of objection from the victims, in conjunction with the principles enunciated in Laxmi Narayan, Gian Singh, and Narinder Singh, justify quashing non-compoundable offences of a private nature under Section 482 Cr.P.C., provided the case does not fall within the category of heinous or public-interest crimes.
Final Disposition
Criminal Misc. Case allowed; proceedings in C.C.No.419/2022 quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Jithin T
  • Ashwanth Asok
  • Harish Maharoof
  • Vyshak

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
  • Sai Swaroop
  • Muhammed Arshad

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Vivek P.K.
  • • Gadha S.
  • • Mohamed Shareef
  • • Pariyarath Sandeep Sukumaran

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Renjith T.R.
  • • Syam Kumar M.P

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., challenges the continuation of C.C. No. 419/2022 arising from Crime No. 430/2022 of Kalamassery Police Station. The petitioners, accused in the Magistrate court, are charged with offences under Sections 323, 341, 506, and 294(b) read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution alleges that the accused restrained the victim, assaulted her, and used filthy language. The petitioners contend that the dispute has been settled between the parties, and there is no further desire to pursue prosecution; affidavits from the victims support the settlement. The Public Prosecutor initially expressed reservations about quashing based solely on a settlement but conceded that the matter is settled. The court examined the matter in light of Supreme Court jurisprudence — State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab — and noted the principles that (i) quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is permissible for non-compoundable offences with civil character when disputes are private and settled; (ii) such power is not available for heinous/serious offences; (iii) not appropriate for offences under special statutes or involving public servants; (iv) offences like S.307 IPC or Arms Act are generally treated as crimes against society; (v) antecedents and conduct of the accused may be considered. After considering the records, the court held the dispute to be private in nature, accepted the settlement, and allowed the petition. Accordingly, all further proceedings in C.C.No.419/2022 were quashed. The order reflects a careful balance between private settlement and public interest, relying on established Supreme Court doctrine to permit quashing when appropriate.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 Cr.P.C.Section 320 IPCSection 307 IPCArms Act (general reference)Prevention of Corruption Act (general reference)Section 482 of CrPC (reiteration)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Quashing of non-compoundable offences under Section 482 CrPC can be invoked where the dispute is private and settled, especially where the offences have civil character (e.g., arising out of civil transactions or family disputes).
  • Not to exercise the power where the offence is heinous or grave (e.g., murder, rape, dacoity) or involving public interest.
  • Not to quash for offences under special statutes or by public servants merely on the basis of settlement.
  • In offences like Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act, the crime is a matter of public societal interest, requiring scrutiny of the nature of injury and evidence before quashing.
  • Antecedents and conduct of the accused, including reasons for absconding and the manner of entering into compromise, may influence the exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submitted that the dispute among the parties has been resolved amicably and the victims have consented to quashing the prosecution. They relied on affidavits from the victims confirming no objection to quashing and argued that continued prosecution would serve no purpose, given the private nature of the dispute and the settlement already reached between the parties. They urged the Court to exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to dismiss the proceedings, citing the principles laid down in Laxmi Narayan and related cases, which permit quashing where the dispute is private and settled and the offences are not of the serious kind that affect society.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents’ counsel, along with submissions from the victims’ side, acknowledged the settlement but raised reservations about quashing solely on the basis of an amicable settlement. They urged the Court to consider the gravity of the offences and the impact on public peace and morality. The Public Prosecutor noted the settlement but emphasized caution, highlighting that for non-compoundable offences, continuity of proceedings is not automatically unwarranted if the charges involve elements requiring adjudication to protect public interest.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others2019 (5) SCC 688PositiveCited as the leading authority on using the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash non-compoundable offences when the dispute is private and settled, with a caveat on gravest offences.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another2012 (10) SCC 303PositiveCited for general principles on when quashing is permissible and for noting that such power should not be invoked for offences of a serious nature; used to support the framework laid down in Laxmi Narayan.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another2014 (6) SCC 466PositiveCited as part of the Supreme Court jurisprudence guiding the exercise of Section 482 powers, especially as contextualized in subsequent decisions.

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. 7566 of 2023 – Jithin T., Ashwanth Asok, Harish Maharoof, Vyshak vs. State of Kerala and Sai Swaroop; Muhammed Arshad 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 THURSDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 7566 OF 2023** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 419/2022 OF JMFC, KALAMASSERY (TEMPORARY)** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4:** 1 JITHIN T AGED 22 YEARS S/O CHANDRAN, THAIKKANDY HOUSE, KOOVODE, KUTTIKKAL P.O, THALIPARAMB, KANNUR, PIN - 670562 2 ASWANTH ASOK AGED 23 YEARS S/O ASOKAN, THAZHEKUNIYIL HOUSE, MADAPPILLY COLLEGE P.O, ONCHIYAM, PIN - 673102 3 HARISH MAHAROOF AGED 22 YEARS S/O HASSAINAR, KUMBAKKODE HOUSE, PADAPPU, KASARGOD, PIN - 671541 4 VYSHAK AGED 22 YEARS S/O PRADEEP, NECHIKKATTU HOUSE, VETTALOOR P.O, MAKARAMPARAMBA, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676507 BY ADVS. VIVEK.P.K GADHA.S MOHAMED SHAREEF PARIYARATH SANDEEP SUKUMARAN ## **- RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT AND INJURED WITNESS:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 SAI SWAROOP AGED 22 YEARS S/O VENUGOPAL, VANNARA HOUSE, NEAR IRINGOOR MAHASIVA Crl.M.C.No.7566 of 2023 **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** TEMPLE, VADAKARA, KOZHIKKOODE, PIN - 673101 3 MUHAMMED ARSHAD AGED 23 YEARS S/O ASIF, VALIYAKATH THACHILAKATH HOUSE, THOYAKKAVU, VENKITANGU, THRISSUR, PIN - 680513 BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH T.R., PP SRI.SYAM KUMAR M.P THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.No.7566 of 2023 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** **------------------------------** **Crl.M.C.No.7566 of 2023 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 26[th] day of October, 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 C.C.No.419/2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kalamassery arising from Crime No.430/2022 of Kalamassery Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 506, 294(b) r/w 34 IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused Crl.M.C.No.7566 of 2023 4 wrongfully confined the victim and assaulted the victim. It is also alleged that the accused used filthy languages. 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 affidavits filed by the victims in support of his contention. The counsel appearing for the victims also submitted that the matter is settled and the victims have 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 Crl.M.C.No.7566 of 2023 5 the petitioners, victims and the Public Prosecutor and has also gone through the records including the affidavits 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 to herein_ Crl.M.C.No.7566 of 2023 6 _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 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_ Crl.M.C.No.7566 of 2023 7 _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 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 Crl.M.C.No.7566 of 2023 8 accepted. Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous case is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.419/2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kalamassery arising from Crime No.430/2022 of Kalamassery Police Station are quashed. Sd/- DM **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** Crl.M.C.No.7566 of 2023 9 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7566/2023** PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT AND MEMO OF EVIDENCE IN CRIME NO. 430 OF 2022 OF KALAMASSEY POLICE STATION ANNEXURE A2 THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17.08.2023 ANNEXURE A3 THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 17.08.2023 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS :NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE