IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

# **`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. 5379 OF 2023`** ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT SC 847/2022 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - III, MANJERI / III ADDITIONAL MACT, ``` ## **`MANJERI`** ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 8:`** ``` 1MUHAMMED ANEES AGED 38 YEARS S/O ASHRAF C, CHUNDAMPATTA HOUSE, PATHAYIKKARA P.O, NEAR MANAZHI BUS STAND, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679322 2MUHAMMED ASHIQ P.T AGED 38 YEARS S/O UMMAR, POONTHOTTATHIL HOUSE, PERINTHALMANNA P.O, NEAR GOVT. HOSPITAL, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679322 3MUHAMMED ASHIF P. AGED 35 YEARS S/O SAINUDHEEN, PACHEERI HOUSE, KANAKKANCHERI, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679322 4USMAN P AGED 34 YEARS S/O HUSSAIN, PACHEERI HOUSE, NEAR VENUS LODGE, OOTY ROAD, PERINTHALMANNA P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679322 5MUHAMMED MUNEER K. AGED 34 YEARS S/O MUHAMMED, KIZHISERY HOUSE, KAKOOTH, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679322 6VISHNU P. AGED 29 YEARS S/O SURENDRAN, PULLANIKKATTIL HOUSE, NEAR PANCHAMI SCHOOL, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679322 7SAI KUMAR AGED 33 YEARS S/O SANKARAN KUTTY, THENCHEERI HOUSE, NEAR PANCHAMI SCHOOL, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679322 ``` ``` 8RIYAS V.P ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 5379 OF 2023 ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` AGED 41 YEARS S/O ASSAINAR, VELLARAMPARA HOUSE, ANAMANGAD, MANALAYA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679357 BY ADVS. ARUN ASHOK NEENA JAMES ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/DEFACTO COMPLAINTANT:`** - `1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031` - `2 ARIF QUAMER K. AGED 40 YEARS S/O SAIDALAVI KOOTTEERI, KOOTTEERI HOUSE, NEAR ST GEMMAS, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676505 BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ## `HRITCWICK CS PP` ``` 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. 5379 OF 2023 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------Crl.M.C. No. 5379 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 SC No.847/2022 of the Additional Sessions Court-III, Manjeri arising from Crime No.781/2021 of Malappuram Police Station. 3. The above case is registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 365, 395, 212 r/w 34 of the IPC. The prosecution case is that the accused committed dacoity kidnap. 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. 5379 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 apex court in **Laxmi Narayan** 's case (supra) also relied on the law laid ``` CRL.MC NO. 5379 OF 2023 ``` ``` 5 ``` 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. 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 ``` CRL.MC NO. 5379 OF 2023 ``` ``` 6 ``` 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 had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc.” ``` CRL.MC NO. 5379 OF 2023 ``` ``` 7 ``` 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 SC No.847/2022 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-III, Manjeri arising from Crime No.781/2021 of Malappuram Police Station are quashed. Sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** ska ``` CRL.MC NO. 5379 OF 2023 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5379/2023`** |`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`|| |---|---| |`Annexure-I`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR AND FIS IN CRIME NO.`| ||`781 OF 2021 OF THE MALAPPURAM POLICE STATION`| ||`DATED 15-12-2021`| |`Annexure-II`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.`| ||`781 OF 2021 OF THE MALAPPURAM POLICE STATION`| ||`DATED 27-01-2022`| |`Annexure-III`|`A TRUE COPY OF E-COURTS PROCEEDINGS OF S.C`| ||`NO. 847 OF 2022 ON THE FILE OF THE 3RD`| ||`ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, MANJERI DATED 04-`| ||`07-2023`| |`Annexure-IV`|`AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED`| ||`14-06-2023`| |`Annexure-V`|`AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE INFORMANT DATED 14-06-`| ||`2023`|