High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-10-25Quashed

Nissam and others v. State of Kerala and others

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C. No. 8186 of 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2023-10-25
Court Decision / Holding: This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in CC No.285/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II (Temporary), Kothamangalam arising from Crime No.983/2021 of Oonnukal Police Station are quashed.
Final Disposition: Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Nissam
Amal Rocky
Abdul Jaleel V. A
Sanoop P. S
Nadhar in Nissar

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
Shahabas Khan
Shajeer Khan
Hairunissa
Shanavas Khan

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P. M. Rafeeq
• Sara John

Counsels for Respondents

• V. A. Navas, S. Sujesh J. Mathew (S-1455), Renjith T.R., PP

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under section 482 CrPC filed by five petitioners (Nissam, Amal Rocky, Abdul Jaleel V. A, Sanoop P. S, and Nadharin Nissar) challenging CC 285/2021 arising from Crime No. 983/2021 of Oonnukal Police Station, before the High Court of Kerala. The petition seeks to quash the criminal proceedings pending in the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II (Temporary) at Kothamangalam, where the petitioners are charged under multiple IPC sections (143, 323, 341, 427, 448, 451, 506 read with 149 IPC) along with 149 IPC. The prosecution alleges that the accused formed an unlawful assembly, confined the victim, and assaulted her. The key development is the parties’ settlement; affidavits from the victims state consent to quashing, and the petitioners’ counsel submits that there is a settlement. The Public Prosecutor initially expresses reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement but concedes that the matter is settled. The judge cites the Supreme Court decisions in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab to outline when quashing private, non-compoundable offences is permissible. After examining the facts, records, and the settlement, the court holds that the dispute is private in nature and accepts the settlement, quashing all further proceedings against the petitioners. The matter is decided by a Single Judge of the Kerala High Court on 25 October 2023.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)Section 320 IPCSection 143 IPCSection 323 IPCSection 341 IPCSection 427 IPCSection 448 IPCSection 451 IPCSection 506 r/w 149 IPCSection 149 IPCSection 307 IPCArms ActPrevention of Corruption Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Quashing of non-compoundable offences under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised where the dispute is private and predominantly civil in nature, especially after parties settle
Such power is not to be used for heinous or serious offences (e.g., murder, rape, dacoity) or for offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or conduct by public servants
Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act are serious and are not typically quashed solely on the basis of settlement; the court may, if needed, evaluate the nature of the injury and the circumstances after investigation or during trial
In quashing proceedings, the High Court may consider the antecedents and conduct of the accused (e.g., whether the accused was absconding, how the settlement was reached)
The court should harmoniously read and apply Narinder Singh and related decisions with the subsequent facts and stage of investigation or trial

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the dispute is private and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. They relied on affidavits from the victims stating no objection to quashing the prosecution. Since the offences are non-compoundable but fall within a civil- or private-law framework arising from a domestic or private dispute, and given the settlement, the court should exercise its powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings, thereby bringing closure and endorsing restorative justice. The petitioners contend that continuing prosecution would be an unjust burden given the settlement and the relatively non-heinous nature of the alleged offences; the court should ensure finality while balancing public interest and private interests. Affidavits and documents annexed support the settlement and the absence of ongoing public interest in continuing the case.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor expressed initial reservations about quashing solely on the basis of a settlement, emphasising the need to consider the nature of the offences and public interest. However, he conceded that the matter is settled between the parties, and victims support settlement. The respondents’ counsel argued that while settlement may be a factor, quashing non-compoundable offences requires careful application of established legal principles, including the guidance from Laxmi Narayan, Gian Singh, and Narinder Singh to ensure that quashing does not undermine justice or public interest. They urged the court to consider the facts, the stage of investigation, and the potential impact on society before exercising its discretion under Section 482 CrPC. The victims’ representatives corroborated the settlement and opposed continued prosecution.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others	2019 (5) SCC 688	Positive	Used to articulate the general principle that Section 482 CrPC can quash non-compoundable offences in private disputes when settlements are in place and the dispute has civil character.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another	2012 (10) SCC 303	Positive	Cited in the Laxmi Narayan framework; supports the approach toward quashing where settlement resolves the dispute and public-interest considerations are satisfied.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another	2014 (6) SCC 466	Positive	Referenced to harmonize the approach about when quashing may be permissible, especially in relation to the stage of investigation and the need to assess whether the charge framed reflects a serious offense or not.

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 Nissam 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 WEDNESDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 3RD KARTHIKA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 8186 OF 2023 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 285/2021 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGIST. COURT, KOTHAMANGALAM(TEMPORARY)** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:** 1 NISSAM AGED 28 YEARS S/O NISSAR, KUNNEKUDIYIL HOUSE, MANIKKINAR BHAGAM, PAIMATTOM KARA, PALLARIMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM, KERALA, PIN - 686671 2 AMAL ROCKY AGED 26 YEARS S/O ANTONY, KALATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PAIMATTOM BHAGAM, PAIMATTOM KARA, PALLARIMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM, KERALA, PIN - 686671 3 ABDUL JALEEL V. A AGED 32 YEARS S/O ALIYAR, VALLOORAN HOUSE, KANDANTHARA KARA, VENGOLA VILLAGE, PERUMBAVOOR, KERALA, PIN - 683556 4 SANOOP P. S AGED 31 YEARS S/O SHAJAHAN, MULLANKUZHI HOUSE, VENGOLA KARA, VENGOLA VILLAGE, PERUMBAVOOR, KERALA, PIN - 683556 5 NADHARIN NISSAR AGED 22 YEARS D/O NISSAR, KUNNEKUDIYIL HOUSE, MANIKKINAR BHAGAM, PAIMATTOM KARA, PALLARIMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM, KERALA, PIN - 686671 BY ADVS. P.M.RAFEEK SARA JOHN ## **- RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, Crl.M.C.No.8186 of 2023 2 PIN - 682031 2 SHAHABAS KHAN AGED 25 YEARS S/O SHAJEER KHAN, MALEKUDY HOUSE, OONNUKAL, KAVALANGAD KARA, KUTTAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686693 3 SHAJEER KHAN AGED 48 YEARS S/O MUHAMMAD ISMAYIL, MALEKUDY HOUSE, OONNUKAL, KAVALANGAD KARA, KUTTAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686693 4 HAIRUNISSA AGED 46 YEARS W/O SHAJEER KHAN, MALEKUDY HOUSE, OONNUKAL, KAVALANGAD KARA, KUTTAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686693 5 SHANAVAS KHAN AGED 19 YEARS S/O SHAJEER KHAN, MALEKUDY HOUSE, OONNUKAL, KAVALANGAD KARA, KUTTAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686693 BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.NAVAS SRI.SUJESH J.MATHEW(S-1455) SRI.RENJITH T.R., PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.No.8186 of 2023 3 **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------** **Crl.M.C.No.8186 of 2023 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 25[th] day of October, 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.285/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II (Temporary), Kothamangalam arising from Crime No.983/2021 of Oonnukal Police Station. The above case is charge-sheeted against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 323, 341, 427, 448, 451, 506 r/w 149 IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused Crl.M.C.No.8186 of 2023 4 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and wrongfully confined the victim and assaulted the victim. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits 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 Crl.M.C.No.8186 of 2023 5 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) 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_ Crl.M.C.No.8186 of 2023 6 _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 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_ Crl.M.C.No.8186 of 2023 7 _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 dispute is private in nature and the settlement can be 8 Crl.M.C.No.8186 of 2023 accepted. Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous case is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.285/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II (Temporary), Kothamangalam arising from Crime No.983/2021 of Oonnukal Police Station are quashed. Sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** DM Crl.M.C.No.8186 of 2023 9 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 8186/2023** PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.983/2021 DATED 30/09/2021. ANNEXURE A2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE F.I.R NO. 983/2021 DATED 24/08/2021 ANNEXURE A3 AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 EVIDENCING THEIR INTENTION TO SETTLE/COMPROMISE THE DISPUTE WITH THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED DATED 1/10/2023. ANNEXURE A4 AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 3 EVIDENCING THEIR INTENTION TO SETTLE/COMPROMISE THE DISPUTE WITH THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED DATED 1/10/2023 ANNEXURE A5 AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE RESPONDENT NO 4 EVIDENCING THEIR INTENTION TO SETTLE/COMPROMISE THE DISPUTE WITH THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED DATED 1/10/2023 ANNEXURE A6 AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 5 EVIDENCING THEIR INTENTION TO SETTLE/COMPROMISE THE DISPUTE WITH THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED DATED 1/10/2023 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS :NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE