High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed; proceedings against the petitioners in...

Harish Maharoof and others v. State of Kerala and Hani Atta (CRL.MC No. 6883 of 2023, Kerala High Court)

Case / Petition Number:CRL.MC No.6883 of 2023
Neutral Citation:/null

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date
2023-10-12
Court Decision / Holding
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in C.P.No.20/2023 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kalamassery arising from Crime No.1110/2022 of Kalamassery Police Station are quashed.
Final Disposition
Quashed; proceedings against the petitioners in CP 20/2023 are quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Harish Maharoof
  • Jithin T Chandran
  • Vyshak
  • Hrithik Raj
  • Vivek
  • Arjun Raj M A
  • Aswanth Asok
  • Mehak

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
  • Hani Atta (de facto complainant and injured)
  • (and any implied connected party as de facto complainant)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

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

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Nima Jacob, Public Prosecutor
  • • Sri. Shyam Kumar M.P

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case filed under Section 482 CrPC in the Kerala High Court by eight accused (petitioners) challenging the cognate proceedings in C.P. No.20/2023 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Kalamassery, arising from Kalamassery Police Station crime No.1110/2022. The petitioners are charged with offences including sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 308 r/w 149 IPC for forming an unlawful assembly and assault. The petitioners contend that the parties have resolved their dispute and do not wish to pursue prosecution; the victim has filed an affidavit supporting quashing; the victim’s advocate also states the matter is settled with no objection to quashing. The Public Prosecutor initially reserved an objection but conceded the matter is settled. The court relies on the Supreme Court’s decisions in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) and the line of authorities starting with Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab to hold that the power under S.482 CrPC to quash non-compoundable offences may be exercised when the case is private in nature and the entire dispute has been resolved. However, offences of a heinous nature or under special statutes are typically not quashed. After evaluating the facts, the court finds the dispute private and accepts the settlement; consequently, the case is allowed and all further proceedings in CP 20/2023 are quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 CrPCSections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 308 r/w 149 IPCSection 320 IPC (referenced in discussion)Section 307 IPC (referenced in discussion)Arms Act (referenced in discussion)Prevention of Corruption Act (referenced in discussion)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Laxmi Narayan doctrine on quashing non-compoundable offences under S.482 when disputes are private and settled
  • Gian Singh v. State of Punjab; Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another — guiding principles on when quashing is permissible; consideration of public vs private interest and the nature of the offence
  • Antecedents and conduct of the accused as a factor in exercising power under S.482 to quash

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argued that the dispute is private, the parties have settled, and the victim has filed an affidavit supporting quashing; the broader public interest balance favors ending the prosecution where the offence is non-compoundable but private and settled, in line with established Supreme Court doctrine. They urged quashing in the interest of justice given the settlement.

Contentions of Respondents

The State Prosecutor initially reserved reservations about quashing non-compoundable offences; however, he acknowledged settlement. The respondents emphasized the need to assess whether the offences (PC/rioting sections etc.) are private in nature and whether the settlement should override concerns about serious offences; they relied on the jurisprudence that quashing is permissible for private disputes only when the offence is not heinous and is not under special statutes.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others2019 (5) SCC 688PositiveCited for the principle that S.482 CrPC can quash non-compoundable offences where the dispute is private and settled, with restrictions for heinous/offences of public interest.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another2012 (10) SCC 303PositiveCited as guiding precedents clarifying the scope and limits of quashing orders under S.482 in non-compoundable offences.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another2014 (6) SCC 466PositiveCited to harmonize the earlier dicta and to set out the framework for evaluating private disputes and settlement in quashing proceedings.

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 Harish Maharoof and others v. State of Kerala and Hani Atta (CRL.MC No. 6883 of 2023, Kerala High Court) 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 12[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 20TH ASWINA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 6883 OF 2023** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CP 20/2023 OF JMFC,** **KALAMASSERY (TEMPORARY)** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 8:** 1 HARISH MAHAROOF AGED 22 YEARS S,O HASSAINAR, KUMBAKKODE HOUSE, PADAPPU, KASARGOD, PIN - 671541 2 JITHIN T CHANDRAN AGED 22 YEARS S,O CHANDRAN, THAIKKANDY HOUSE, KOOVODE, KUTTIKKAL P.O, THALIPARAMB, KANNUR, PIN - 670562 3 VYSHAK AGED 22 YEARS S,O PRADEEP, NECHIKKATTU HOUSE, VETTALOOR P.O, MAKARAMPARAMBA, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676507 4 HRITHIK RAJ AGED 20 YEARS S,O RAJU, THOROKUDY HOUSE, NADUVATTAM P.O, KANIMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 680027 5 VIVEK AGED 20 YEARS S,O PRADEEP, NECHIKKATTU HOUSE, VETTALOOR P.O, MAKARAMPARAMBA, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676507 6 ARJUN RAJ M A AGED 21 YEARS S,O ANANT, MAYYATHIL HOUSE, KADUKKATTIL P.O, CHALAKKUDY, PIN - 680741 7 ASWANTH ASOK AGED 23 YEARS S,O THAZHEKUNIYIL HOUSE, MADAPPILLY COLLEGE P.O, ONCHIYAM, PIN - 673102 8 MEHAK AGED 21 YEARS VAKAYIL HOUSE, VAVAKKAD, MOOTHAKUNNAM, ERNAKULAM, CRL.MC No.6883 of 2023 2 PIN - 683516 BY ADVS. VIVEK.P.K GADHA.S MOHAMED SHAREEF PARIYARATH SANDEEP SUKUMARAN ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND INJURED** ## **WITNESSES:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 HANI ATTA AGED 23 YEARS S,O ATTAKOYA THANGAL, NAKKINTAVIDA HOUSE, ANGADIBHAGAM, KUTTIYADI P.O, VADAKARA, KOZHIKKODE., PIN - 673508 ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SMT.NIMA JACOB, PP, SRI.SHYAM KUMAR.M.P FOR RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.MC No.6883 of 2023 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** CRL.MC No.6883 of 2023 **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** Dated this the 12[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. The petitioners are the accused in C.P.No.20/2023 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kalamassery arising from Crime No.1110/2022 of Kalamassery Police Station. The above case is charge sheeted against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 308 r/w Section 149 IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused formed themselves into unlawful assembly and attacked 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 CRL.MC No.6883 of 2023 4 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. 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.** CRL.MC No.6883 of 2023 5 ## **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. 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_ CRL.MC No.6883 of 2023 6 _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 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 CRL.MC No.6883 of 2023 7 and the settlement can be accepted. Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous case is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in C.P.No.20/2023 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kalamassery arising from Crime No.1110/2022 of Kalamassery Police Station are quashed. Sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** bng CRL.MC No.6883 of 2023 8 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6883/2023** PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT AND MEMO OF EVIDENCE IN CRIME NO. 1110 OF 2022 OF KALAMASSEY POLICE STATION Annexure A2 THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17.08.2023