Rhetwik V.V. and others v. State of Kerala and C.K. Rahmathulla

CRL.MC NO. 10083 OF 2023 1 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 10083 OF 2023 CRIME NO.1417/2020 OF Hosdurg Police Station, Kasargod AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 1079/2021 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,HOSDRUG** **PETITIONER/S:** 1 RHETWIK.V.V AGED 27 YEARS S/O V.SUKUMARAN, AINGOTHU (H), MOOVARIKKAND, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD-, PIN - 671315 2 UDAYAKUMAR K AGED 42 YEARS S/O AMBU K., KOVVAL STORE, KANHANGAD VILLAGE, KASARAGOD-, PIN - 671315 3 MADANAN P.K AGED 42 YEARS S/O AMBU B.K., THEKKUPURAM (H), KOVVAL STORE, KANHANGAD VILLAGE, KASARAGOD-, PIN - 671315 4 MANI M AGED 47 YEARS S/O KUNHAMBU, THEKKUPURAM (H), KANHANGAD SOUTH, KANHANGAD VILLAGE, KASARAGOD-, PIN - 671315 5 VINODAN K.V. @ UNDA VINU AGED 52 YEARS S/O KUNHIKKANNAN, KUNHIKKANNAN (H), KOVVAL STORE, KANHANGAD VILLAGE, KASARAGOD-, PIN - 671315 6 MANURAJ V.V. @ MANU AGED 37 YEARS S/O KRISHNAN M., PARAKKODU (H), KANHANGAD SOUTH, KANHANGAD VILLAGE, KASARAGOD-, PIN - 671315 7 RANJITH K CRL.MC NO. 10083 OF 2023 2 AGED 36 YEARS S/O APPA K., KAVUNTHALA (H), KANHANGAD SOUTH, KANHANGAD VILLAGE, KASARAGOD-, PIN - 671315 8 SUBIN.M AGED 29 YEARS S/O RAMESHAN., CHAPPAYIL (H), ARAYIKKADAVU, KANHANGAD VILLAGE, KASARAGOD-, PIN - 671315 9 SREERAG A AGED 25 YEARS S/O MADHAVAN A., AMBADI (H), MOOVARIKKAND, KANHANGAD VILLAGE, KASARAGOD-, PIN - 671315 10 ANEESH KUMAR C AGED 38 YEARS S/O NARAYANAN, CHEVARI (H), KOVVAL STORE, MUTHAPPANAR KAAV, KANHANGAD VILLAGE, KASARAGOD-, PIN - 671315 11 AJEESH C AGED 42 YEARS S/O NARAYANAN C., CHALIYA VALAVU, KOVVAL STORE, KANHANGAD VILLAGE, KASARAGOD-, PIN - 671315 BY ADV A.ARUNKUMAR ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 C.K. RAHMATHULLA AGED 55 YEARS S/O MUHAMMED KUNHI, PALATT VILLA, BALLA BEACH, BALLA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD-, PIN - 671315 ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SMT SREEJA V, PP, SRI.VIPIN T JOSE, RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.MC NO. 10083 OF 2023 3 **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J --------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.10083 of 2023 -------------------------------------Dated this the 14[th] day of December, 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. 1079/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg arising from Crime No. 1417/2020 of Hosdurg Police Station. The above case is chargesheeted alleging offences punishable under Sec.143, 147, 148, 448, 427 r/w 149 IPC. The offence under Secs.3 and 5 of the Kerala Prevention of Damage to Public Property and Payment of Compensation Act is also alleged. 3. The prosecution case is that on 24.12.2020 at about 8 pm, the petitioners and other 14 unidentified persons formed CRL.MC NO. 10083 OF 2023 4 themselves into an unlawful assembly with dangerous weapons and trespassed into the Municipal Muslim League office at Hosdurg Town, Hosdurg and vandalised the office creating a loss of Rs.2,00,000/-. It is submitted that this incident happened in connection with a murder case. Several cases were registered in connection with that murder case and all the cases were settled. The Public Prosecutor submitted that there are some criminal antecedents to the petitioners. But since all the cases are settled to avoid a further incident in this area, I am of the considered opinion that the settlement can be accepted and the case can be quashed. 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 CRL.MC NO. 10083 OF 2023 5 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, 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: 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 CRL.MC NO. 10083 OF 2023 6 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 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 CRL.MC NO. 10083 OF 2023 7 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 accepted. Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous case is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in CC No. CRL.MC NO. 10083 OF 2023 8 1079/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg arising from Crime No. 1417/2020 of Hosdurg Police Station are quashed. **Sd/P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** SKS CRL.MC NO. 10083 OF 2023 9 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 10083/2023** PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure AI A TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO.1417 OF 2020 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION Annexure AII CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 1417 OF 2020 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION Annexure AIII THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT