High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed the criminal proceedings; all further p...

Muhammad Nebhan and others v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:CRL.M.C No. 7557 of 2023
Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date
2023-10-06
Court Decision / Holding
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No.220/2022 of Vatakara Police Station, now pending as CC 514/2022 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – I, Vatakara, are quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
Final Disposition
Quashed the criminal proceedings; all further proceedings against petitioners are quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Muhammad Nebhan
  • Mahir P C
  • Shanif T P
  • Muhammed
  • Muhammed Shibily
  • Muhammed Midhilaj

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
  • Muhammed Hajsal, S/o Hamsa Chettientavida, Edachery P.O., Vatakara Taluk, Kozhicode (victim)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Adv. K. Reeha Khader

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Adv. Hritwick C.S., P.P.
  • • Adv. Subhash

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court (Single Judge) criminal miscellaneous case, Crl.M.C. No. 7557 of 2023, concerns quashing of proceedings under Section 482 CrPC in Crime No. 220/2022 of Vatakara Police Station, now pending as CC 514/2022 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vatakara. The six petitioners—accused Nos. 1–6—are alleged to have formed an unlawful assembly and committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, and 324 r/w 149 IPC. The prosecution contends a violent incident resulting in injuries; however, the petitioners contend the dispute has been settled and they wish to end prosecution. The victim has sworn an affidavit supporting settlement, and the victim’s counsel confirms no objection to quashing. The Public Prosecutor, while initially reserving views, concedes that the matter is settled; the court nevertheless examines the law. It relies on the Supreme Court’s decisions in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) (5) SCC 688, and the earlier Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab, to delineate when non-compoundable offences can be quashed under S.482 CrPC, especially where the dispute is private and resolved. After careful consideration, the court finds the dispute private, the settlement genuine, and directs quashing of all further proceedings against the petitioners. The order emphasizes balancing private settlement with public interest and the accused’s antecedents.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of CrPCSections 143, 147, 148, 324 r/w 149 IPCSection 320 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Power of the High Court under S.482 CrPC to quash non‑compoundable offences where the dispute is private and settled (Laxmi Narayan; Gian Singh; Narinder Singh)
  • Offences of a heinous nature (e.g., murder, rape, dacoity) cannot be quashed under S.482 merely on compromise
  • Non‑compoundable offences under private disputes may be quashed with regard to the accused’s antecedents and conduct
  • Criminal justice balance between private settlement and public interest; private disputes can be treated as civil in nature for quashing purposes

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that the extant dispute is private and the parties have settled their grievances. They rely on the victim’s affidavit and submit that there is no objection to quashing the proceedings. They contend that quashing under S.482 CrPC is warranted where the offences are non‑compoundable but private in character and the settlement reflects a voluntary resolution of the dispute, which would preserve social harmony and avoid prolonged prosecution.

Contentions of Respondents

The State/Prosecution expresses reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement but concedes that the matter is settled. The respondent victims’ side supports closure of the case via quashing, subject to judicial scrutiny of the settlement’s genuineness and the overall public interest.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others2019 (5) SCC 688PositiveThe court relies on the Laxmi Narayan decision to articulate the scope of S.482 CrPC quashing in private, non‑compoundable offences when the disputes are settled.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another2012 (10) SCC 303PositiveCited as part of the governing framework discussed in Laxmi Narayan to justify quashing where applicable.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another2014 (6) SCC 466PositiveCited as part of the trio of authorities influencing the court’s approach to quashing non‑compoundable offences upon settlement.

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 Muhammad Nebhan and others v. State of Kerala 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 FRIDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 14TH ASWINA, 1945** **CRL.MC NO. 7557 OF 2023** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 6:** 1 MUHAMMAD NEBHAN AGED 22 YEARS S/O NASAR POOKUNNUMMAL (H) VELOM, PIN - 673508 2 MAHIR P C AGED 22 YEARS S/O MUHAMMED T P THAIVACHPARAMBATH (H) ERAMALA P O ORKKATTERI, PIN - 673501 3 SHANIF T P AGED 23 YEARS S/O SAFIYA TOOVARAYULLAPARAMBATH MOKERI P O KUTTIYADY, PIN - 673507 4 MUHAMMED AGED 23 YEARS S/O BASHEER, KANGATTUKUNEEL (H) VADAYAM NARIKUTTUNCHAL KAKKATTIL VATAKARA TALUK, PIN - 673507 5 MUHAMMED SHIBILY AGED 22 YEARS S/O MOOSA MEETHALE PACHIYANADAKKAL (H) THIRUVALLOR P O VATAKARA, PIN - 673541 6 MUHAMMED MIDHILAJ AGED 22 YEARS S/O HARIS ELLATH (H) KARANDOD P O KUTTIYADY, PIN - 673508 BY ADV K.REEHA KHADER ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 MUHAMMED HAJSAL AGED 20 YEARS Crl.M.C.No.7557 of 2023 **==> picture [6 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** S/O HAMSA CHETTEENTAVIDA (H) EDACHERY P O VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHILODE, PIN - 673502 BY ADVS. SRI.HRITCWICK C.S., PP SRI.SUBHASH THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.No.7557 of 2023 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** **------------------------------** **Crl.M.C.No.7557 of 2023** **---------------------------------------------Dated this the 06[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 Crime No.220/2022 of Vatakara Police Station which is now pending as C.C.No.514/2022 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – I, Vatakara. The above case is charge sheeted against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324 r/w 149 IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused Crl.M.C.No.7557 of 2023 4 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and assaulted the victim and thereby committed the above said offences. 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 Crl.M.C.No.7557 of 2023 5 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. 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: Crl.M.C.No.7557 of 2023 6 _“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 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_ Crl.M.C.No.7557 of 2023 7 _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 Crl.M.C.No.7557 of 2023 8 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.220/2022 of Vatakara Police Station which is now pending as C.C.No.514/2022 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – I, Vatakara are quashed. Sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** DM Crl.M.C.No.7557 of 2023 9 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7557/2023** PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO. 220/2022 OF VATAKARA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT ANNEXURE A2 THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT(R2) HAS SWORN TO AN AFFIDAVIT RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS :NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE