High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed — All further proceedings in Crime No. ...

CRL.MC No. 7937 of 2023 (In re: Crime No. 883/2023, Kadinamkulam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram)

Case / Petition Number:CRL.MC 7937 of 2023
Neutral Citation:/null

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date
2023-10-16
Court Decision / Holding
The Court allowed the CrL.M.C. and quashed all further proceedings in Crime No. 883/2023 and the final report.
Final Disposition
Quashed — All further proceedings in Crime No. 883/2023; final report quashed; matter disposed in favor of the petitioners.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • MUHAMMED SHAHAN
  • SAJEER SHAJAHAN
  • ANSIL MANSOOR
  • LIBINSHA NOUSHAD
  • KURSHID
  • SAHEER NISSAM
  • NIJAS
  • SHEHIN SHAJAHAN

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
  • TAHA

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Adv J. Jayakumar

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Public Prosecutor, State of Kerala

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 CrPC before the High Court of Kerala challenging the continuation of proceedings in Crime No. 883/2023 of Kadinamkulam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. Eight accused (1–8) are named in the petition filed by their counsel, seeking quashing of offences under IPC sections 341 ( wrongful confinement ), 294(b) (obscene language), 323 (hurt), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt with dangerous weapons), and 34 (common intention). The State/Respondents oppose only on grounds that public interest must be weighed, but the victim’s affidavit and the parties’ affidavits indicate settlement and no objection to quashing. The court, relying on Supreme Court jurisprudence led by State of MP v. Laxmi Narayan (2019) and the earlier Gian Singh and Narinder Singh decisions, sets out the framework: quashing non‑compoundable offences can be entertained when the dispute is private and resolved, except for heinous or serious offences (e.g., murder, rape, dacoity), offences under special statutes (like PCA) or acts by public servants; and the court may assess whether prosecution has a public interest to override settlement. The Kerala High Court finds the dispute private, the settlement bona fide, and that no public interest is served by continuing the prosecution; accordingly, it allows the CrL.M.C. and quashes all further proceedings and the final report in Crime No. 883/2023. The order is passed by Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, Single Judge.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 CrPCSections 341, 294(b), 323, 324, and 34 IPCSection 320 IPCSection 307 IPCArms ActPrevention of Corruption ActCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Power under S.482 CrPC to quash non‑compoundable offences in private disputes when the dispute is private and settled
  • Not to quash for heinous or serious offences affecting society
  • Not to quash for offences under PCA or offences by public servants
  • Court may examine if S.307 IPC is incorporated merely on paper or after evidence is collected (post‑investigation)
  • Discretion in quashing should consider the private nature of the dispute and antecedents of the accused
  • Settlement between victim and offender can influence the exercise of the inherent power under CrPC
  • Criminal proceedings can be quashed where the dispute is private and settled, maintaining a balance between private resolution and public interest

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners’ counsel submitted that the eight accused have settled their dispute with the victim and do not wish to continue the prosecution. They relied on the affidavit of the victim supporting quashing, arguing that the case concerns a private dispute and the offences are non‑compoundable but the settlement should permit quashing under the inherent powers of CrPC, consistent with Laxmi Narayan and related judgments.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement. However, he acknowledged that the matter is settled and that the court may consider quashing if the private dispute remains dominant and public interest is not affected. The State stressed the need to ensure that the offences do not undermine public order and that the records support the settlement; the police final report is already filed, and the offences involve typical private‑nature acts (confinement, insult, simple and grievous hurt) rather than heinous crimes.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others2019 (5) SCC 688PositiveApex Court laid down that non‑compoundable offences in private disputes may be quashed under CrPC Section 482 when the entire dispute is resolved, with exceptions for heinous/offences creating public impact.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another2012 (10) SCC 303Mentioned OnlyCited as part of the background framework that Laxmi Narayan relied upon; not directly treated as controlling authority in the Kerala High Court’s decision.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another2014 (6) SCC 466Mentioned OnlyCited within the Laxmi Narayan reasoning; not independently applied in the present order.

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.MC No. 7937 of 2023 (In re: Crime No. 883/2023, Kadinamkulam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram) 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 16[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 24TH ASWINA, 1945 ``` ## **`CRL.MC NO. 7937 OF 2023`** ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1to 8`** - `1 MUHAMMED SHAHAN AGED 22 YEARS S/O. SHAJAHAN, PANDAKASALAYIL, NEAR BUS STAND, PERUMATHURA DESOM, SARKARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695394` - `2 SAJEER SHAJAHAN AGED 23 YEARS S/O. SHAJAHAN, THOPPIL VEETIL, PERUMATHURA DESOM, SARKARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695394` - `3 ANSIL MANSOOR AGED 27 YEARS S/O. MANSOOR, KASALAKKAKAM HOUSE, PERUMATHURA DESOM, SARKARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695394` - `4 LIBINSHA NOUSHAD AGED 24 YEARS S/O. NOUSHAD, PANDAKASALA, PERUMATHURA DESOM, SARKARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695394` - `5 KURSHID AGED 21 YEARS S/O. NAJEEB, KASALAKKAKAM HOUSE, PERUMATHURA DESOM, SARKARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695394` - `6 SAHEER NISSAM AGED 21 YEARS S/O. NIZAR, VALIYAVILAKAM VEETIL, PERUMATHURA DESOM, SARKARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695394` - `7 NIJAS AGED 23 YEARS S/O. JAFAR, THOPPIL VEETIL, PERUMATHURA DESOM, SARKARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695394` - `8 SHEHIN SHAJAHAN AGED 24 YEARS S/O.SHAJAHAN, VALIYAVILAKAM VEETIL, PERUMATHURA DESOM, SARKARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695394 BY ADV J.JAYAKUMAR` ## **`RESPONDENTS/ DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/STATE:`** - `1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031` ``` CRL.MC NO. 7937 OF 20232 ``` ``` 2TAHA AGED 38 YEARS S/O. SHAHANUDHEEN, IDAPALLI THERUVIL PURAMBOKE VEEDU, PERUMATHURA POST, SARKARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695394 ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` HRITCWICK CS PP N.R.SURESH KUMAR ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 7937 OF 2023 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** ## **-------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.7937 of 2023 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 16[th] day of October, 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 accused in Crime No.883/2023 of Kadinamkulam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The above case is registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 324 and 34 of IPC. It is submitted that final report is also filed in this case. 3. The prosecution case is that accused wrongfully confined the victim and assaulted the victim using flithy language. 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 ``` CRL.MC NO. 7937 OF 2023 ``` ``` 4 ``` 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 petitioner, 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 ``` CRL.MC NO. 7937 OF 2023 ``` ``` 5 ``` 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 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. ``` CRL.MC NO. 7937 OF 2023 ``` ``` 6 ``` 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, how he ``` CRL.MC NO. 7937 OF 2023 ``` ``` 7 ``` 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 against the petitioners in Crime No.883/2023 of Kadinamkulam Police Station Thiruvananthapuram including the final report are quashed. Sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** ska ``` CRL.MC NO. 7937 OF 2023 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7937/2023`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure1CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR AND FIS IN CRIME NO. 883/2023 OF KADINAMKULAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT Annexure2CERTIFICATE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED NIL FILED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADINAMKULAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT 1, ATTINGAL Annexure3AFFIDAVIT DATED 16/8/2023 SWORN TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ```