High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed

Noufal and Anil Kumar v. State of Kerala and Mubarak

Case / Petition Number:CRL.M.C. No. 5662 of 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date
2023-09-07
Court Decision / Holding
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in CC No.1184/2020 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court‑I, Aluva, arising from Crime No.722/2020 of Aluva East Police Station, Ernakulam, are quashed.
Final Disposition
Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Noufal
  • Anil Kumar

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
  • Mubarak

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Shiras Aliyar

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri Vipin Narayan, Public Prosecutor
  • • Smt. Sowmini D Nair

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 CrPC filed by Noufal and Anil Kumar seeking to quash CC 1184/2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Aluva, arising from Crime No. 722/2020 of Aluva East Police Station. The petitioners face charges for offences under Sections 341, 323, 447, 427, 294(b) and 506(1) r/w 34 IPC. The prosecution alleges a private enmity resulting in trespass into the defacto complainant’s courtyard and use of filthy language. The petitioners assert that the dispute has been fully settled and do not want prosecution to continue; the victim has filed an affidavit indicating consent to quashing and has no objection. The Public Prosecutor expresses reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement, though he concedes that the matter is settled. The High Court, after considering the materials, relies on Supreme Court guidance, notably State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) 5 SCC 688, and the earlier Gian Singh and Narinder Singh decisions, to outline when Section 482 CrPC quashing is permissible for non‑compoundable offences in private disputes. It concludes the dispute is private, the settlement is genuine, and quashing is warranted. The petition is allowed; all proceedings in CC 1184/2020 are quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of CrPCSections 341, 323, 447, 427, 294(b), 506(1) r/w 34 IPCSection 320 IPCSection 307 IPCArms ActPrevention of Corruption Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Power under Section 482 CrPC to quash non‑compoundable offences having civil character when parties have resolved the entire dispute
  • Not to exercise such power for heinous offences or offences under special statutes or involving public servants
  • Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act would fall in the category of crimes against society and cannot be quashed solely on the basis of settlement
  • HC may examine whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is for the sake of it or supported by evidence, after investigation and charge framing
  • Antecedents and conduct of the accused to be considered in deciding whether to quash

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Applicants submit that the dispute with the defacto complainant has been fully settled and there is no ongoing grievance; the victim has filed an affidavit indicating consent to quashing and no objection to the quashing. They rely on the private nature of the dispute and on the Court’s jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash non‑compoundable offences when parties have resolved the dispute.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor acknowledges settlement but cautions against quashing merely on that basis; he notes that offences can be non‑compoundable or have public interest implications. He concedes the matter is settled but emphasizes evaluating the nature of the offences and the evidence before exercising quashing, citing controlling jurisprudence to safeguard public interest.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others2019 (5) SCC 688PositiveThree‑judge bench framework for quashing non‑compoundable offences under 482 CrPC when disputes are settled; supports quashing in private disputes.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another2012 (10) SCC 303PositiveCited by Laxmi Narayan; used as part of the governing rationale for exercising quashing power in private settlements.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another2014 (6) SCC 466PositiveCited to harmonize approach to quashing in the context of non‑compoundable offences and settlement.

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 Noufal and Anil Kumar v. State of Kerala and Mubarak 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 THURSDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 16TH BHADRA, 1945 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 5662 OF 2023 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 1184/2020 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, ALUVA ``` ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2:`** ``` 1NOUFAL AGED 46 YEARS, S/O ABDUL KHADER, KALLAYI HOUSE, KUNNATHERI, THAIKKATTUKARA. P.O, CHOORNIKKARA VILLAGE., PIN - 683106 ``` - `2 ANILKUMAR AGED 53 YEARS,` ``` S/O RAJAN , CHETHIKODE, AMBATTUKAVU BHAGAM, , THAIKKATTUKARA. P.O, CHOORNIKKARA VILLAGE., PIN - 683106 ``` ``` BY ADV SHIRAS ALIYAR ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:`** - `1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031` ``` 2MUBARAK AGED 39 YEARS S/O USMAN, PULIMOTTIL HOUSE, PALLITHAZHAM, KUNNATHERI, THAIKKATTUKARA. P.O, CHOORNIKKARA VILLAGE., PIN - 683106 ``` ``` CRL. M.C. NO.5662 OF 2023 ``` **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`PRESENT:`** ``` SRI. VIPIN NARAYAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SOWMINI D NAIR. ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 3 ``` CRL. M.C. NO.5662 OF 2023 ``` **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------Crl.M.C. No. 5662 of 2023 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 07[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 petitioners are the accused in C.C. No. 1184/2020 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court - I, Aluva, arising from Crime No. 722/2020 of Aluva East Police Station, Ernakulam. The above case is charge sheeted against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 447, 427, 294(b), 506(1) r/w 34 of IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that on account of 4 ``` CRL. M.C. NO.5662 OF 2023 ``` the enmity of the petitioners towards the defacto complainant, the petitioners trespassed into the courtyard of the defacto complainant and attack him and use filthy language. 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 affidavit filed by the victim in support of his contention. The counsel appearing for the victim also submitted that the matter is settled and the victim has 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 5 ``` CRL. M.C. NO.5662 OF 2023 ``` the petitioners, victim and the Public Prosecutor and has also gone through the records including the affidavit filed by the victim. 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 above, it is observed and held as under: ``` CRL. M.C. NO.5662 OF 2023 ``` 6 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 ``` CRL. M.C. NO.5662 OF 2023 ``` 7 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 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 8 ``` CRL. M.C. NO.5662 OF 2023 ``` 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 C.C. No. 1184/2020 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court - I, Aluva, arising from Crime No. 722/2020 of Aluva East Police Station, Ernakulam, are quashed. nvj Sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** ``` CRL. M.C. NO.5662 OF 2023 ``` 9 ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5662/2023`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ``` ``` ANNEXURE A1CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.722/2020 OF ALUVA EAST POLICE STATION DATED 07.05.2020 ``` ``` ANNEXURE A2CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIS IN CRIME NO. 722/2020 OF ALUVA EAST POLICE STATION DATED 07.05.2020 ANNEXURE A3CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET OF CC NO.1184/2020 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT 1 AT ALUVA DATED 04.09.2020 ``` ``` ANNEXURE A4AFFIDAVIT DATED 05/07/2023 SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ``` RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS :NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE