High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed

Muhammed Ashif and others v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:CRL.M.C.No.8305 of 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date
2023-11-07
Court Decision / Holding
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.58/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ponnani arising from Crime No.532/2018 of Ponnani Police Station are quashed.
Final Disposition
Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • MUHAMMED ASHIF
  • AFSAL
  • ASHIK

Respondents

  • STATE OF KERALA
  • SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PONNANI POLICE STATION
  • ABDUL REHMAN
  • ABOOBAKKER SIDIQUE

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • P.R. Ajay

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Smt. Sreeja V, PP

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C. No. 8305 of 2023) arises from Crime No. 532/2018 at Ponnani Police Station and the charge sheet CC No. 58/2019 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ponnani. The petitioners, MUHAMMED ASHIF, AFSAL, and ASHIK, are accused of offences under Sections 341, 323, 324 r/w 34 IPC. The prosecution alleges wrongful confinement and assault resulting in injuries to the victim. The parties have reportedly settled their dispute; affidavits filed by the victims indicate consent for quashing the proceedings, and the victims have no objection. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about quashing solely on settlement but accepted that the matter is settled. The court carefully considers the submissions, records, and the guidance of the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) (5) SCC 688, which, building on Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, lays down the scope of the power under Section 482 CrPC to quash non‑compoundable offences in private disputes when the entire dispute is resolved. It emphasizes that such power should not apply to heinous or public‑interest offences and that antecedents and conduct of the accused may be relevant. Applying this framework, the court finds the dispute private, the settlement legitimate, and quashes the proceedings; the petition is allowed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 482 (CrPC)IPC Sections 341, 323, 324 read with 34Section 320 IPCPrevention of Corruption ActArms ActSection 307 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Quashing of non‑compoundable offences under 482 CrPC is permissible when disputes are private and settled.
  • Not to quash serious/offences with potential public impact (heinous offences such as murder, rape, dacoity).
  • Offences under special statutes (e.g., Prevention of Corruption Act) or offences by public servants are generally not quashed merely on the basis of compromise.
  • Courts may consider antecedents and conduct of the accused (e.g., whether absconding) before exercising 482 CrPC.
  • Framing/charging details and evidence collection phase influence the scope of quashing (generally after investigation/charge).
  • Laxmi Narayan, Gian Singh, and Narinder Singh form controlling precedents guiding the exercise of the 482 CrPC power in private settlement cases.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that the offences are non‑compoundable under Section 320 IPC, but the dispute is private in nature and has been resolved fully between the parties. They contend that the High Court has the power under Section 482 CrPC to quash ongoing criminal proceedings where the entire dispute has been settled, particularly in private or family-type disputes or commercial disputes, and that continuation would be wasteful and contrary to public interest. They rely on affidavits from the victims stating consent to quash and no objection to withdrawal of prosecution.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement, arguing that the court must ensure the absence of public harm and consider the seriousness of the offences. He conceded that the matter is settled and that the victims support closure, but urged careful scrutiny of the facts, the nature of injuries, weapon use, and the possibility of hidden aggravating factors. The court was urged to apply the Laxmi Narayan framework with caution, ensuring that the settlement does not undermine justice in serious offences.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others2019 (5) SCC 688PositiveCited as controlling precedent for allowing quashing of non‑compoundable offences under 482 CrPC in private settlements where the dispute is resolved.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another2012 (10) SCC 303PositiveCited as part of the chain of authority underpinning 482 CrPC quashing principles.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another2014 (6) SCC 466PositiveCited as part of the framework discussed in Laxmi Narayan for use of 482 CrPC in private settlements.

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 Muhammed Ashif and others v. State of Kerala and Others 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 TUESDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 16TH KARTHIKA, 1945** **CRL.MC NO. 8305 OF 2023** **CRIME NO.532/2018 OF Ponnani Police Station, Malappuram AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 58/2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF** **FIRST CLASS -I, PONNANI** ## **PETITIONER(S)/1ST ACCUSED:** 1 MUHAMMED ASHIF AGED 27 YEARS S/O KUNHIPPA @ ABOOBAKER, PARAMBATT VALAPPIL HOUSE, NARIPARAMBA P.O, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679573 2 AFSAL AGED 30 YEARS S/O HASSAN AYYAPAN KAVIL, AYYAPAN KAVIL HOUSE, NARIPARAMBA P.O, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679573 3 ASHIK AGED 29 YEARS S/O ABDUL AZEEZ THOOMBIL, THOOMBIL HOUSE, NARIPARAMBA P.O, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679573 BY ADV P.R.AJAY ## **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PONNANI POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679586 3 ABDUL REHMAN AGED 34 YEARS S/O HAMSA, EKKURATH VALAPPIL HOUSE, NARIPPARAMBA P.O, NEAR NARIPPARAMBA MUJAHID MASJID, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679573 4 ABOOBAKKER SIDIQUE AGED 29 YEARS Crl.M.C.No.8305 of 2023 **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** S/O ALI, EKKURATH VALAPPIL HOUSE, NARIPPARAMBA P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679573 BY ADV. SMT. SREEJA V, PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.No.8305 of 2023 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** **------------------------------** ## **Crl.M.C.No.8305 of 2023** **---------------------------------------------Dated this the 07[th] day of November, 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.58/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ponnani arising from Crime No.532/2018 of Ponnani Police Station. The above case is charge-sheeted alleging offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324 r/w 34 IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused wrongfully confined the victim and assaulted the victim and thereby the victim sustained injuries. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits Crl.M.C.No.8305 of 2023 4 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 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 Crl.M.C.No.8305 of 2023 5 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 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_ Crl.M.C.No.8305 of 2023 6 _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 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 noncompoundable 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_ Crl.M.C.No.8305 of 2023 7 _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 accepted. Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous case is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in in C.C.No.58/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ponnani arising from Crime No.532/2018 of Ponnani Police Station are quashed. Sd/- DM **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** Crl.M.C.No.8305 of 2023 8 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 8305/2023** PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE - 1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 25/01/2019 SUBMITTED IN C.C. NO. 58/2019 ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PONNANI ANNEXURE 2 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 CONFIRMING THE SETTLEMENT OF ALL THE DISPUTES WITH THE PETITIONERS ANNEXURE 3 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 CONFIRMING THE SETTLEMENT OF ALL THE DISPUTES WITH THE PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE