High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed; proceedings in CC 483/2021 against pet...

Nisar, Farooq, Sayyid Nishan and Navas v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:CRL.MC NO. 7905 OF 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date
2023-10-17
Court Decision / Holding
This Criminal Misc. Case is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in CC No. 483/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nadapuram arising from Crime No.199/2020 are quashed.
Final Disposition
Quashed; proceedings in CC 483/2021 against petitioners are quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Nisar
  • Farooq
  • Sayyid Nishan
  • Navas

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
  • Shihabudheen (respondent)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Adv. M.P. Priyeshkumar

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
  • • Sri. Hrithwik, C.S., Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court criminal misc case under Sec. 482 CrPC, challenging CC No.483/2021 from Nadapuram JFCM, arising out of Crime No.199/2020. Petitioners Nisar, Farooq, Sayyid Nishan and Navas (accused in offences under Secs. 324 IPC and 506 r/w Sec.34 IPC) seek quashing on the ground of settlement between the parties. The victims have filed affidavits and support the settlement, and the accused contend the prosecution should be quashed in light of private, civil character disputes resolved by the parties. The Public Prosecutor expresses initial reservations about quashing merely on settlement, but concedes the dispute is settled. The court reviews the record and cites Supreme Court precedents—State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab—to set the legal framework for exercising the extraordinary power under Sec. 482 CrPC to quash non‑compoundable offences. The Laxmi Narayan ratio holds that quashing is permissible for private disputes with largely civil character where the entire dispute is resolved, while not for heinous or public‑interest offences nor certain statutes (e.g., POC Act). The court also emphasizes evaluating antecedents and conduct of the accused. Upon finding the dispute private and the settlement genuine, the court allows the Crl.M.C. and quashes CC 483/2021 proceedings against the petitioners.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of CrPCSection 324 IPCSection 506 r/w Section 34 IPCSection 320 IPC (non‑compoundable offences)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Power of 482 CrPC to quash non-compoundable offences arising out of private disputes when settled (Laxmi Narayan, etc.)
  • Non‑quashing for heinous/serious offences (e.g., murder, rape, dacoity)
  • Offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or offences by public servants not to be quashed on compromise
  • S.307 IPC and Arms Act not to be treated as divisible from society; require evidence-based charge framing
  • Consideration of antecedents and conduct of accused when exercising 482 CrPC
  • Harmony of Narinder Singh (2014) with Laxmi Narayan (2019) regarding the scope of 482 CrPC

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that the dispute has been settled between the parties; affidavits of the victims support the settlement; they submit that quashing the proceeding under Sec. 482 CrPC is warranted as the offence has largely civil/private character and the entire dispute has been resolved. They emphasize the settled nature of the case and request quashing to avoid continuing prosecution which serves no useful purpose.

Contentions of Respondents

The State/Prosecution expresses reservations about quashing solely on the basis of a settlement, but concedes that the matter is settled and that the court may exercise its discretion under Sec. 482 CrPC after considering the law and the facts. They stress that certain offences, particularly heinous or statutory offences, should not be quashed merely on settlement and that the court must carefully evaluate the nature of offences and evidence, especially given the potential public interest.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others2019 (5) SCC 688PositiveLaxmi Narayan sets out the framework for using Sec. 482 CrPC to quash non‑compoundable offences where the dispute is private and settled, guiding the present decision.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another2012 (10) SCC 303PositiveCited as part of the governing principles for quasi‑criminal quashing under 482 CrPC, clarifying limits and context.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another2014 (6) SCC 466PositiveUsed to harmonize and articulate the scope of 482 CrPC in relation to settled private 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 Nisar, Farooq, Sayyid Nishan and Navas 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.

CRL.MC NO. 7905 OF 2023 1 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **TUESDAY, THE 17[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 25TH ASWINA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 7905 OF 2023** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 483/2021 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,NADAPURAM** ## **PETITIONER/S:** 1 NISAR AGED 51 YEARS S/O. MUTHUKKOYA NASEERA MANZIL HOUSE, KAKKAMVELLI, NADAPURAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,, PIN - 673504 2 FAROOQ AGED 63 YEARS S/O ALAVIKKOYA NASEERA MANZIL HOUSE, KAKKAMVELLI, NADAPURAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,, PIN - 673504 3 SAYYID NISHAN AGED 22 YEARS S/O SAITHSUBIN NASEERA MANZIL HOUSE, KAKKAMVELLI, NADAPURAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,, PIN - 673504 4 NAVAS AGED 34 YEARS S/O SAITH FAROOQUE NASEERA MANZIL HOUSE, KAKKAMVELLI, NADAPURAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,, PIN - 673504 BY ADV M.P.PRIYESHKUMAR ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 SHIHABUDHEEN CRL.MC NO. 7905 OF 2023 2 AGED 42 YEARS S/O SAINUDEEN, SAITH MANZIL (HOUSE), THARIPEENTAVIDA, PURAMERI POST, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,, PIN - 673503 ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SRI.HRITHWIK, C.S, PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.MC NO. 7905 OF 2023 3 **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J --------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No. 7905 of 2023 -------------------------------------Dated this the 17[th] day of October, 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 petitioners are the accused in CC No. 483/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nadapuram arising from Crime No.199/2020 of Nadapuram Police Station. The above case is registered alleging offences punishable under Secs. 324, 506 r/w Sec.34 of the IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused wrongfully confined the victim and also criminally intimidated him. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties have settled their dispute and do not wish to CRL.MC NO. 7905 OF 2023 4 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 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)** CRL.MC NO. 7905 OF 2023 5 **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 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_ CRL.MC NO. 7905 OF 2023 6 _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 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_ CRL.MC NO. 7905 OF 2023 7 _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 CC No. 483/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nadapuram arising from Crime No.199/2020 of Nadapuram Police Station are quashed. **Sd/-** **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** SKS CRL.MC NO. 7905 OF 2023 8 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7905/2023** PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.199/2020 OF NADAPURAM POLICE STATION,KOZHIKODE Annexure B A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT ALONG WITH THE MEMORANDUM OF EVIDENCE IN CRIME NO.199/2020 WHICH IS NOW PENDING AS C.C.483/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, NADAPURAM Annexure C THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 27.08.2023