Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed; proceedings in CC 236/2021 are quashed...

Rahith M and others v. State of Kerala and Abdul Rasheed C.H and others

Case / Petition Number:CRL.M.C. No. 10463 of 2023
Neutral Citation:,

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date
2023-12-21
Court Decision / Holding
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C. No. 236/2021, arising from Crime No. 1389/2020 of Hosdurg Police Station, are quashed.
Final Disposition
Quashed; proceedings in CC 236/2021 are quashed as per the order of the single judge; the FIR/charge sheet proceedings initiated are closed in light of settlement and legal principles.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Rahith M
  • Raju P
  • Ratheesh P
  • Abhijith M.V.

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor
  • Abdul Rasheed C.H
  • Nizamudeen C.H
  • Shihabudheena @ Shihab.B

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Adv A. Arunkumar

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Adv. SMT. Sreeja V.
  • • Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court of Kerala, in a decision by Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan, exercises inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash a criminal proceeding arising from Crime No.1389/2020 and CC 236/2021 against four accused. The petition, Crl.M.C. No. 10463 of 2023, seeks to quash on the ground that the parties have amicably settled the dispute; affidavits from the victims support the move and indicate no objection to quashing. The offences alleged are 143, 147, 148, 341, 324 r/w 149 IPC, which are generally non-compoundable. The Public Prosecutor initially objected to quashing solely on the basis of settlement but conceded that a settlement exists. The court thoroughly evaluates precedents, especially State of Madhya Pradesh v Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019 (5) SCC 688), which lays down when non-compoundable offences with a private civil character can be quashed under S.482 CrPC upon settlement, while excluding heinous or serious offences and offences under special statutes such as the Prevention of Corruption Act, or offences by public servants. The judgments in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab are cited as background. After considering the facts and the affidavits, the court holds the dispute is private and the settlement genuine, and thus allows the Crl.M.C. and quashes all further proceedings. The order is by a Single Judge (P. V. Kunhikrishnan). The appendix lists annexures; neutral citation is not provided.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 CrPCSection 320 IPCSections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324 r/w 149 IPCSection 307 IPCArms ActPrevention of Corruption Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Power under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences with predominantly civil character when parties have settled their entire dispute.
  • Such power is not to be exercised for heinous and serious offences (e.g., murder, rape, dacoity) and for offences under special statutes.
  • Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act are to be treated as crime against society and generally cannot be quashed solely on the basis of settlement; High Court may examine on evidence whether there is a basis for charging under Section 307.
  • In quashing non-compoundable offences, the Court should consider antecedents, conduct, and whether the accused was absconding or how the settlement was reached.
  • Settlement in private disputes should be weighed against societal interests in non-compoundable offences; the decision must harmonize with broader precedents and the factual context."],
  • parties_preponderance_of_sources
  • parties":{"respondents":["State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor","Abdul Rasheed C.H","Nizamudeen C.H","Shihabudheena @ Shihab.B"],"applicants":["Rahith M","Raju P","Ratheesh P","Abhijith M.V."]},
  • lawyers_preplitary
  • lawyers":{"applicants":["Adv A. Arunkumar"],"respondents":["Adv. Smt. Sreeja V.","Public Prosecutor"]},
  • arguments
  • arguments_secure
  • arguments": {
  • applicants
  • text":"The petitioners argue that the four accused have amicably settled their dispute with the victims, who have filed affidavits supporting quashing. They rely on the principles laid down in Laxmi Narayan and other precedents, arguing that the power under Section 482 CrPC can be invoked where the non-compoundable offences are private in nature and the entire dispute has been resolved. The presence of a settlement and the lack of ongoing public interest or societal harm supports quashing and terminating the proceedings in CC 236/2021. They contend that the proceedings should be quashed in light of the civil-like resolution of the matter and the victims’ consent to the quashing, without unduly compromising public interest where applicable."
  • respondents
  • text":"The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, initially reserved objections to quashing merely on the basis of settlement but conceded that a settlement exists and is genuine. The respondents’ counsel submitted that quashing is permissible under the controlling law only where the dispute is private and non-compoundable offences with a civil character have been settled, subject to the court confirming the authenticity and sufficiency of evidence, and considering the gravity and nature of the offences. They emphasized that non-compoundable offences under the IPC, and offences in special statutes, should not be quashed merely on settlement, and highlighted that the presence of allegations under sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324 r/w 149 IPC requires careful scrutiny to avoid undermining public interest."},
  • final_court_decision
  • The State Court Held
  • case_disposition
  • Crl.M.C. allowed; all further proceedings in CC 236/2021 arising from Crime No.1389/2020 are quashed.
  • bench
  • Single Judge
  • final_disposition
  • Quashed
  • neutral_citation
  • null

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that the dispute between the accused and the victims has been amicably resolved. affidavits show consent to quash, and the matter falls within the private civil domain. They rely on Laxmi Narayan and the position that non-compoundable offences with private settlement can be quashed under S.482 CrPC, with due regard to circumstances, nature of injuries, and the absence of public interest. The petition emphasizes that the offences are not among the grave or public-societal-involving categories listed for non-quashable treatment.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents acknowledge the settlement but caution that quashing a criminal matter cannot be solely grounded on private agreement if the offences are non-compoundable or fall under certain categories. While conceding the settlement and victims’ consent, they stress that the court must evaluate the gravity of the offences under sections 143, 147, 148, 341 and 324 r/w 149 IPC, and consider public interest, the possibility of abuse, and the need for a deterrent effect. They rely on the risks of setting a precedent that could undermine justice in cases involving violence and possible misuses of private settlements.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others2019 (5) SCC 688PositiveCited as the controlling authority allowing quashing of non-compoundable offences in private disputes when settled, subject to limitations.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another2012 (10) SCC 303Mentioned OnlyCited as background authority referenced by Laxmi Narayan; not the primary basis for the present decision.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another2014 (6) SCC 466Mentioned OnlyCited in the same context as background jurisprudence; not independently applied in this judgment.

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 Rahith M and others v. State of Kerala and Abdul Rasheed C.H 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 THURSDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945** **CRL.MC NO. 10463 OF 2023** **CRIME NO.1389/2020 OF Hosdurg Police Station, Kasargod AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 236/2021 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF** ## **FIRST CLASS -I,HOSDRUG** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4:** 1 RAHITH M AGED 27 YEARS S/O RAJAN, RESIDING AT MEETHAN HOUSE, NEAR VISHNU CHAMUNDESHWARA TEMPLE, CHAMUNDIKKUNNU, CHITTARI VILLAGE, KASARAGOD, PIN - 671316 2 RAJU P AGED 36 YEARS S/O KRISHNAN (LATE), RESIDING AT PACHIKKARAN HOUSE, CHERIYAM VAYAL, RAMAGIRI, CHITTARI VILLAGE, , KASARAGOD, PIN - 671316 3 RATHEESH P AGED 33 YEARS S/O KRISHNAN (LATE), RESIDING AT PACHIKKARAN HOUSE, CHERIYAM VAYAL, RAMAGIRI, CHITTARI VILLAGE, KASARAGOD, PIN - 671316 4 ABHIJITH M.V. @ JITHU AGED 28 YEARS S/O CHANDRAN K., RESIDING AT MEETHAN HOUSE, NEAR VISHNU CHAMUNDESHWARA TEMPLE, CHAMUNDIKKUNNU, CHITTARI VILLAGE, KASARAGOD, PIN - 671316 BY ADV A.ARUNKUMAR ## **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND INJURED:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 ABDUL RASHEED C.H AGED 42 YEARS Crl.M.C.No.10463 of 2023 2 S/O MOOSA, RESIDING AT P.V.K HOUSE, CHITTARI, CHITTARI VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD, PIN - 671316 3 NIZAMUDHEEN C.H. AGED 31 YEARS S/O EBRAHIM, RESIDING AT P.V.K HOUSE, CHITTARI, CHITTARI VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD, PIN - 671316 4 SHIHABUDHEEN @ SHIHAB.B AGED 38 YEARS S/O ABDULLA, CHITTARI, CHITTARI VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD, PIN - 671316 BY ADV. SMT. SREEJA V., PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.No.10463 of 2023 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** **------------------------------** ## **Crl.M.C.No.10463 of 2023 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 21[st] day of December, 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.236/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – I, Hosdurg arising from Crime No.1389/2020 of Hosdurg Police Station. The above case is charge sheeted against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324 r/w 149 IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and wrongfully confined the victim and assaulted the victim and the victim sustained injuries. Crl.M.C.No.10463 of 2023 4 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 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 Crl.M.C.No.10463 of 2023 5 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:_ _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_ Crl.M.C.No.10463 of 2023 6 _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 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 noncompoundable 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_ Crl.M.C.No.10463 of 2023 7 _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 C.C.No.236/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – I, Hosdurg arising from Crime No.1389/2020 of Hosdurg Police Station are quashed. Sd/- DM **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** Crl.M.C.No.10463 of 2023 8 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 10463/2023** PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE AI A TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO. 1389 OF 2020 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION ANNEXURE AII CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 1389 OF 2020 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION ANNEXURE AIII THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ANNEXURE AIV THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY RESPONDENT NO.3 ANNEXURE AV THE AFFIDAVITS SWORN TO BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE