Nabil K. A and Hashim @ Mohammed Hashim v. State of Kerala and Others

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH MONDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 28TH BHADRA, 1944** **CRL.MC NO. 4987 OF 2022** **CRIME NO.363/2009 OF Bekal Police Station, Kasargod CC 206/2020 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS** **-II,HOSDRUG** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 4 & 9:** 1 NABIL K. A, AGED 30 YEARS S/O ABDUL RAHMAN, THEKKEVEEDINADUTH HOUSE, KEEZHOOR, KALANAAD, KASARAGOD, KERALA., PIN - 671317 2 HASHIM @ MOHAMMED HASHIM AGED 36 YEARS, S/O MUHAMMED SHAFI, KIZHUR, KALANAD, KERALA, PIN - 671317 BY ADVS.RAHUL SASI NEETHU PREM, VIVEK.P.K MANU K. MURALI ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANTS:** 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 SASI. K, AGED 47 YEARS S/O KANDANKORAN, CHANDRIKALAYAM, THERUVATH, KIZHUR VILLAGE, KASARGOD, KERALA., PIN - 671317 Crl.M.C.No.4987/2022 ## -:2:- 3 BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 53 YEARS S/O KANDANKORAN, THERUVATH, KIZHUR VILLAGE, KASARGOD, KERALA., PIN - 671317 4 CHANDRAN, AGED 39 YEARS S/O KRISHNAN, THEKKEVEED, KIZHUR VILLAGE, KASARGOD, KERALA., PIN - 671317 5 DEVAKI, AGED 72 YEARS W/O KRISHNAN, THEKKEVEED, KIZHUR VILLAGE, KASARGOD, KERALA., PIN - 671317 6 SUJATHA, AGED 50 YEARS W/O JALENDRAN, GUDDAMANE, KIZHUR VILLAGE, KASARGOD, KERALA, PIN - 671317 7 LAKSHMEESH, AGED 22 YEARS S/O JALENDRAN, THEKKEVEED, KIZHUR VILLAGE, KASARGOD, KERALA., PIN - 671317 8 JIMNESH, AGED 26 YEARS S/O GOPALAN, THEKKEVEED, KIZHUR VILLAGE, KASARGOD, KERALA., PIN - 671317 BY ADVS. SMT. T.V.NEEMA, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.MIDU DEV PREM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.No.4987/2022 -:3:- ## **O R D E R** Dated this the 19[th] day of September, 2022 This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure A1 final report in Crime No.363/2009 of Bekal Police Station as against the petitioners herein on the ground of settlement between the parties. 2. The petitioners are the accused Nos.4 and 9. The 2[nd] respondent is the de facto complainant and respondent Nos. 3 to 8 are the injured. 3. The offences alleged against the accused are punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 153 and 506(ii) of IPC. 4. The respondent Nos.2 to 8 entered appearance through counsel. Affidavits sworn in by them are also produced. 5. I have heard Sri.Rahul Sasi, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Adv.Midu Dev Prem the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 8 and Smt. T.V. Neema, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Crl.M.C.No.4987/2022 -:4:- 6. The averments in the petition as well as the affidavits sworn in by the respondent Nos. 2 to 8 would show that the entire dispute between the accused Nos.4 and 9 with the de facto complainant has been amicably settled and the de facto complainant has decided not to proceed with the crime against the accused Nos.4 and 9 further. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instruction, submits that the matter was inquired into through the investigating officer, and a statement of the de facto complainant was also recorded wherein he reported that the dispute with the accused Nos.4 and 9 was amicably settled. 7. The Apex Court in _**Gian Singh v. State of Punjab**_ [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)], _**Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others**_ [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and _**State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others**_ [(2019) 5 SCC 688] has held that the High Court invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C can quash criminal proceedings in relation to noncompoundable offence where the parties have settled the matter between themselves notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. if it is warranted in the given facts and circumstances Crl.M.C.No.4987/2022 -:5:- of the case or to ensure ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court. 8. It is true that the settlement was arrived at between the respondent Nos. 2 to 8 (de facto complainant and injured persons) and the accused Nos.4 and 9 alone who are the petitioners. No settlement was arrived at with the remaining accused. Hence, the question is whether the FIR/Final Report against some of the accused alone could be quashed on the ground of settlement invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The Apex Court _**in Lovely Salhotra and Another v. State NCT of Delhi and Another**_ [(2018) 12 SCC 391] quashed the proceedings against one of the accused alone, invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. That was a case where the High Court refused to quash the proceeding holding that the FIR cannot be quashed in part. True, in the said case, the Apex Court had taken into account the facts of the case that no cognizable offence was made out. The Apex Court, on facts, also found that no offence was made out against the appellant/accused therein. However, the principle that could be deduced from the dictum laid down in the said decision is that Crl.M.C.No.4987/2022 -:6:- it is not impermissible to quash the FIR _qua_ some of the accused alone, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. This Court in _**Sajeev & Another v. State of Kerala and Another**_ (2022 (3) KHC 69), has held that it is permissible to quash the proceedings against some of the accused alone on the ground of settlement depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. In these circumstances, I hold that it is permissible in law to quash the FIR or Final Report only against one or some of the accused on the ground of settlement, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 8 submitted that as the dispute between the petitioners and the said respondents is amicably settled, they have no objection whatsoever if the final report is quashed only against the petitioners. The dispute in the above case is purely personal in nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A1 as against the petitioners. The offences in question do not fall within the Crl.M.C.No.4987/2022 ## -:7:- category of offences prohibited for compounding in terms of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in _**Gian Singh**_ (supra), _**Narinder Singh**_ (supra) and _**Laxmi Narayan**_ (supra). For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that no purpose will be served in proceeding with the matter further. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings pursuant to Annexure A1 final report in Crime No.363/2009 of Bekal Police Station as against the petitioners herein accused Nos. 4 and 9 alone stand hereby quashed. Sd/- ## **DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH** **JUDGE** ## **kp** Crl.M.C.No.4987/2022 ## -:8:- ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4987/2022** PETITIONER ANNEXURES - Annexure A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT ALONG WITH MEMO OF EVIDENCE IN CRIME NO. 363 OF 2009 OF BAKEL POLICE STATION - Annexure A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF THE INJURED WITNESS CW5 DATED 20.06.2022 - Annexure A3 THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED BY 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15.06.2022 - Annexure A4 THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED BY 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 15.06.2022 - Annexure A5 THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED BY 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 15.06.2022 - Annexure A6 THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED BY 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 15.06.2022 - Annexure7 THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED BY 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 15.06.2022 - Annexure8 THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED BY 7TH RESPONDENT DATED 15.06.2022 - Annexure9 THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED BY 8TH RESPONDENT DATED 15.06.2022