High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2007-03-21Proceedings quashed; Criminal Miscellaneous Cas...

Nazmudin v. State & CW1

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C. No. 737 of 2007 (CC 919/2005)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: R. Basant
Judgment Date: 2007-03-21
Court Decision / Holding: This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. Proceedings in C.C.No.919/2005 before the J.F.C.M. Tirur are hereby quashed against the petitioner Nazmudin.
Final Disposition: Proceedings quashed; Criminal Miscellaneous Case allowed; C.C.No.919/2005 quashed against the petitioner.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Nazmudin, S/o Koyakutty, Thevar Parambil, Kanjipura

Respondents

1. State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
2. Maimoona, D/o Abdu, Panickaveettill, Thiruvegappura Panchayat

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Sri. B.S. Swathy Kumar

Counsels for Respondents

• S.U. Nazer, Public Prosecutor (for State)
• Smt. P.A. Anitha (for R2)

Case Synopsis & Summary

Nazmudin, accused in a prosecution under Sections 452, 354 and 427 IPC, faced allegations arising from a dispute over occupancy of a house claimed by the tenant of his father-in-law. The case spawned a petition under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the proceedings (C.C. No.919/2005 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirur). The petitioner’s counsel argued that the parties have settled their disputes harmoniously and that the offences under Sections 354 and 427 IPC are compoundable, while 452 IPC is non-compoundable; yet, given the settlement, continued litigation would cause prejudice and trauma. The second respondent filed an affidavit confirming settlement, with signature verified. The court examined jurisprudence, citing B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (AIR 2003 SC 1386) and Rajan v. Little House Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (2005(4) KLT 595). It noted that Rajan clarifies that B.S. Joshi cannot obliterate the distinction between compoundable and non-compoundable offences in composition matters. The court observed no weapon or intent to hurt; at worst, the facts may involve a minor offence under 451 IPC, not 452. Considering the settlement and absence of a continuing dispute, the court invoked its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC and quashed the proceedings against the petitioner.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 452 IPCSection 354 IPCSection 427 IPCSection 482 CrPCSection 320 CrPCSection 451 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Compounding of offences (section 320 IPC) and distinction between compoundable and non-compoundable offences.
Inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings in exceptional cases.
Settlement/compromise can influence exercise of inherent powers where appropriate, while not obliterating the statutory distinction.
Rajan v. Little House Marketing Pvt. Ltd. clarifies that B.S. Joshi cannot obliterate the distinction between compoundable and non-compoundable offences.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicant argued that the dispute has been amicably settled, the offences under Sections 354 and 427 IPC are compoundable and the non-compoundable Section 452 IPC should be treated with leniency given the settlement and lack of a continuing threat or injury. The court should exercise its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash to prevent unnecessary trauma and hardship, particularly since the material facts suggest no weapon or intent to cause hurt; even if the allegations are accepted, the core act seems to be a minor offence (451 IPC) rather than 452 IPC.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents supported the settlement affirmed by affidavit of the second respondent, arguing that the court should consider the decision of B.S. Joshi and Rajan to determine the scope of the quashing power in the light of the settled dispute and the non-punitive aim of quashing where appropriate.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana	AIR 2003 SC 1386	Distinguished	Raj an v. Little House Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (2005(4) KLT 595) held that the decision in B.S. Joshi cannot obliterate the distinction between compoundable and non-compoundable offences in composition matters, hence B.S. Joshi is distinguished in the present case.
Rajan v. Little House Marketing Pvt. Ltd.	2005(4) KLT 595	Positive	Court relies on Rajan to uphold the distinction between compoundable and non-compoundable offences in the context of composition and quashing powers, supporting the court’s approach to quash in an exceptional settlement scenario.

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 Nazmudin v. State & CW1 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 R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST MARCH 2007 / 30TH PHALGUNA 1928 Crl.MC.No. 737 of 2007() -----------------------CC.919/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, TIRUR .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED --------------------------------- NAJMUDIN, S/O KOYAKUTTY, THEVAR PARAMBIL, KANJIPURA. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR RESPONDENTS: STATE & CW1 ------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. MAIMOONA, D/O ABDU, PANICKAVEETTIL, THIRUVEGAPPURA PANCHAYAT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZER ADV.SMT.P.A.ANITHA FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/03/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## **R.BASANT, J.** **----------------------** Crl.M.C.No.737 of 2007 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 21[st] day of March 2007 ## **O R D E R** The petitioner is the accused in a prosecution under Sections 452, 354 and 427 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations against him is that he had committed the said offence against the second respondent herein, who is the tenant of his father-in-law. There was a dispute regarding the occupation of the said house and it is alleged that in pursuance of that dispute, the petitioner had indulged in the alleged offence on 23/10/2003 at 11 a.m. Crime was registered and investigation was conducted by the police. Final report has been filed alleging commission of the offences under Section 452, 354 and 427 I.P.C. 2. The petitioner has come to this court with the prayer that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked and the proceedings against the petitioner may be quashed. What are the reasons? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute regarding possession of the house has now been settled and the parties have harmoniously come to terms. In these circumstances, the continuation of the proceedings would Crl.M.C.No.737/07 2 work out prejudice, hardship and undeserved trauma. The offences punishable under Sections 354 and 427 I.P.C are compoundable. The offences under Section 452 I.P.C is not compoundable. But notwithstanding the fact that it is not compoundable, the court may take into consideration the fact that all other offences have been legally compounded and that the parties have harmoniously settled all their disputes. The second respondent has entered appearance through counsel. She has filed an affidavit also to confirm that the matter has been settled. I find no reason not to accept the same. The learned counsel for the second respondent vouches the signature of the second respondent in the application. 3. Reliance is placed on the decision in B.S.Joshi vs. State of Haryana [AIR 2003 SC 1386] as also the decision of this court in Rajan v. Little House Marketing Pvt.Ltd [2005(4) KLT 595]. As was held in Rajan v. Little House Marketing Pvt.Ltd [2005(4) KLT 595], the decision in B.S.Joshi vs. State of Haryana [AIR 2003 SC 1386] cannot be held to obliterate the distinction between compoundable and non-compoundable offences in the matter of acceptance of composition. The mere fact that non- Crl.M.C.No.737/07 3 compoundable offence has been compounded by the victim by itself is no reason for this court to invoke the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The fact that non-compoundable offences under Section 320 Cr.P.C has been compounded by the second respondent cannot, in these circumstances, clinch the issue. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel for the second respondent pray that this court may take a humane and compassionate view in permitting the parties to see the end of an unnecessary litigation. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that even if the entire allegations were accepted, no offence under Section 452 I.P.C is revealed and at worst only the compoundable offence punishable under Section 451 I.P.C alone is made out. The preparation for causing hurt, assault etc. is the crucial distinction between the offences punishable under Section 451 and 452 I.P.C and in the facts and circumstances of this case, I take note of the fact that there is not even an allegation that the accused was armed with any weapons or articles which would reveal an intention or preparation to cause hurt or assault. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that in the facts and Crl.M.C.No.737/07 4 circumstances of this case, this can be reckoned as an exceptional case where this court would be justified in invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 5. In the result this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. Proceedings in C.C.No.919/2005 before the J.F.C.M Court, Tirur against the petitioner is hereby quashed. ## **(R.BASANT, JUDGE)** jsr **==> picture [91 x 14] intentionally omitted <==** PA to Judge Crl.M.C.No.737/07 5 Crl.M.C.No.737/07 6 ## **R.BASANT, J** C.R.R.P.No. ORDER 21ST DAY OF JULY 2006