High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed

Muhammed Rauf v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:CRL.MC NO. 6103 OF 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P.V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date
2023-09-14
Court Decision / Holding
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. All further proceedings in CP No.40/2023 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ponnani arising from Crime No.604/2013 of Ponnani Police Station, as against the petitioner is quashed.
Final Disposition
Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Muhammed Rauf

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
  • The Sub Inspector of Police, Ponnani Police Station, Malappuram District
  • SHAIKUDHEENSHA @ THANNITHURAKKAL MOIDEEN SHAIKUDHEENSHA
  • Jamshad

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • K.B. Arunkumar
  • • Pooja K.S.

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Ranjit Babu
  • • VIPIN NARAYAN

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed under Section 482 CrPC by Muhammed Rauf challenging CP 40/2023 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ponnani, arising from Crime No. 604/2013. The charges allege offences under IPC Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 308, read with 149. The prosecution case is that the petitioner and other accused formed an unlawful assembly and attacked the defacto complainant; some co-accused had already been quashed by this Court. The petitioner contends that the dispute has been settled and the parties do not wish to pursue the prosecution; affidavits by the victims support the settlement, and the Public Prosecutor acknowledges the settlement though he expresses reservations about quashing solely on this basis. The Court relies on the Supreme Court’s rules as stated in State of Madhya Pradesh v Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 688, which cites Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, to hold that the power under Section 482 CrPC to quash non-compoundable offences can be justified where the offence is private in nature and the dispute has been resolved, provided the offences are not heinous, nor under special statutes. After reviewing the record and affidavits, the Court finds the dispute private, accepts the settlement, and accordingly allows the petition and quashes CP 40/2023 against the petitioner.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 CrPCSection 320 IPCIndian Penal Code: Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 308 read with 149Prevention of Corruption ActSection 307 IPCArms Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Power under s.482 CrPC to quash non-compoundable offences in private disputes upon settlement
  • Not to exercise the power for heinous offences
  • Not to quash for offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or offences by public servants
  • Offences under S.307 IPC and the Arms Act are generally not quashable; requires careful assessment post-investigation
  • Antecedents and conduct of the accused to be considered while exercising the power
  • Read Narinder Singh harmoniously with the Laxmi Narayan framework

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner, supported by affidavits from victims, submitted that the dispute has been settled and the victims have no objection to quashing the prosecution. He argued that the offences are non-compoundable but private in nature and the entire dispute lies between private persons; affidavits indicate resolution of the dispute and avoidance of further litigation. He relied on the Supreme Court’s decisions in State of MP v. Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 688, which cites Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, to contend that Section 482 CrPC can quash non-compoundable offences when the dispute is private and resolved, and the offences are not heinous or under special statutes. The Court should exercise its inherent power to avoid abuse of process and conserve resources, considering the antecedents of the accused.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement, though he acknowledged the settlement. The respondents argued that quashing non-compoundable offences should not be automatic where serious societal impact exists or where offences fall under special statutes; they urged the Court to examine the evidence and nature of the offence (e.g., 307 IPC, weapons, injuries) to determine whether quashing is appropriate. They relied on the need to protect public interest and the seriousness of certain offences. Ultimately, the Respondents accepted settlement, but argued for cautious application of the law.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others2019 (5) SCC 688PositiveCited as controlling authority for quashing non-compoundable offences in private disputes where a settlement exists, with limitations for heinous or statutory offences.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another2012 (10) SCC 303PositiveCited as part of the lineage of decisions underpinning the Laxmi Narayan approach to quashing non-compoundable offences.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another2014 (6) SCC 466PositiveCited to support the framework for using Section 482 CrPC in private, resolved disputes.

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 Rauf 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.

**CRL.MC NO. 6103 OF 2023** **1** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 23TH BHADRA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 6103 OF 2023** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CP 40/2023 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE** **OF FIRST CLASS -I, PONNANI** ## **PETITIONER:** MUHAMMED RAUF AGED 35 YEARS S/O. YOOSAF, KADAMBALATH HOUSE, PAMBAN ROAD, VELIYAMKODU (P.O), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679579 BY ADVS. K.B.ARUNKUMAR POOJA K.S. ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PONNANI POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679577 3 SHAIKUDHEENSHA @ THANNITHURAKKAL MOIDEEN SHAIKUDHEENSHA AGED 28 YEARS S/O. NADIRA MOIDEEN, THANNITHURAKKAL HOUSE, VELIYAMKODU P.O, PATHUMURI, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679579 4 JAMSHAD AGED 33 YEARS HAJIYARAKATH (H), VELIYAMKODU P.O, PATHUMURI, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679579 **CRL.MC NO. 6103 OF 2023** **2** BY ADV RANJIT BABU ## **OTHER PRESENT:** VIPIN NARAYAN PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: **CRL.MC NO. 6103 OF 2023** **3** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** # **-------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.6103 of 2023** **---------------------------------------------Dated this the 14[th] day of September, 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 petitioner is the accused in Crime No.604/2013 of Ponnani Police station, which is now pending as CP No.40/2023 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ponnani. The above case is chargesheeted alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 308 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner and other accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and attacked the defacto complainant. It is submitted that the other accused were already approached this Court and this Court quashed the matter. Annexure A3 is the order. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties have settled their dispute and do not wish to pursue the prosecution proceedings. **CRL.MC NO. 6103 OF 2023** **4** 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 petitioner, 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 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 **CRL.MC NO. 6103 OF 2023** **5** ## _**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 would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of S.307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under_ **CRL.MC NO. 6103 OF 2023** **6** _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 **CRL.MC NO. 6103 OF 2023** **7** dispute is private in nature and the settlement can be accepted. Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous case is allowed. All further proceedings in CP No.40/2023 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ponnani arising from Crime No.604/2013 of Ponnani Police station, as against the petitioner is quashed. Sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** SVP **CRL.MC NO. 6103 OF 2023** **8** ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6103/2023** PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 604/2013 OF PONNANI POLICE STATION Annexure 2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 604/2013 OF PONNANI POLICE STATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PONNANI Annexure 3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 18.11.2019 IN CRL.M.C NO. 4120/2019 AND 4135/2019 Annexure 4 THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 13.06.2023 EXECUTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Annexure 5 THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 20.07.2023 EXECUTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT