Saleem @ Muhammed Saleem v. State of Kerala

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 19TH ASWINA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 7302 OF 2023 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT LPC 38/2018 OF JUDICIAL ``` ``` MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,PAYYANNUR ``` ``` PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.2: ``` ``` SALEEM @ MUHAMMED SALEEM AGED 32 YEARS, S/O ABOOBACKER RAMANTHALLI AMSOM, VADAKKUMBADU, KANNUR, PIN - 670308 ``` ``` BY ADVS. M.ANUROOP MURSHID ALI M. ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031`** - **`2 RAJESH`** ``` S/O RAGHU, AGED 36 YEARS, PUTHIYEDATHU HOUSE, KUNHIMANGALAM AMSOM, KANDAMKULANGARA, KANNUR, PIN - 670309 ``` ``` BY ADVS. ``` ``` SRI. RENJITH T.R. PP SMT. MILAN RACHEL MATHEW ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ``` ``` ON 11.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2 ``` CRL. M.C. NO.7302 OF 2023 ``` **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------Crl.M.C. No. 7302 of 2023 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 11[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 petitioner is the accused in L.P. No.38/2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Payyannur, arising from Crime No.1123/2012 of Payyannur Police Station, Kannur. The above case is charge sheeted against the petitioner and others alleging offences punishable under Sections 143,147,148, 341,323,326,427 r/w 149 of IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful 3 ``` CRL. M.C. NO.7302 OF 2023 ``` assembly and attack the victim and the victim sustained grievous hurt. It is also submitted that some of the accused were already acquitted. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner 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 4 ``` CRL. M.C. NO.7302 OF 2023 ``` the petitioner, 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 ``` CRL. M.C. NO.7302 OF 2023 ``` 5 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 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 ``` CRL. M.C. NO.7302 OF 2023 ``` 6 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 accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc.” 7 ``` CRL. M.C. NO.7302 OF 2023 ``` 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 petitioner in L.P. No.38/2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Payyannur, arising from Crime No.1123/2012 of Payyannur Police Station, Kannur, are quashed. Sd/- nvj ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** ``` CRL. M.C. NO.7302 OF 2023 ``` 8 ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7302/2023`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ``` ``` ANNEXURE A1A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 1123/2012 OF PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION ANNEXURE 2A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN AS CC. 725/2018 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT PAYYANUR IN CRIME NO. 1123/2012 OF PAYYNUR POLICE STATION ANNEXURE A3A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CC 359/2018 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT PAYYANUR ANNEXURE 4THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED ON 16-06-2023 SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ``` RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS :NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE