High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeCriminal proceedings quashed; the matter is dis...

State of Kerala v Hashim, Mohammed Ameen, Huwaiz, Huwaiz Muhammed

Case / Petition Number:CRL.M.C. No. 9622 of 2023
Neutral Citation::null

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date
2023-12-01
Court Decision / Holding
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in CC 291/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I, Ponnani arising from Crime No. 78/2021 of Changaramkulam Police Station are quashed.
Final Disposition
Criminal proceedings quashed; the matter is disposed of by quashing CC 291/2021 proceedings against the petitioners in light of the private settlement and private nature of the dispute.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Hashim
  • Mohammed Ameen
  • Huwaiz
  • Huwaiz Muhammed

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
  • Sheljaas (defacto complainant), S/o Bava, Koottumaadathil House, Othaloor, Othaloor P.O., Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Joemon Antony Sherry
  • • J. Thomas Antony
  • • Nilton Remelo

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri. M.P Prasanth, Public Prosecutor
  • • Sri. Joseph C.V.

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case (CRL.M.C. 9622 of 2023) under section 482 CrPC challenges the continuation of proceedings in CC 291/2021 arising from Crime 78/2021 of Changaramkulam Police Station. The petitioners—Hashim, Mohammed Ameen, Huwaiz, and Huwaiz Muhammed—are accused of offences under sections 341, 323, 324 r/w 34 IPC. The prosecution contends that the accused wrongfully confined and assaulted the victim, causing injuries. The petition argues that the parties have amicably settled the dispute, supported by an affidavit from the victim, and requests quashing of the prosecution. The Public Prosecutor initially expresses reservations but concedes the settlement. The High Court, after reviewing the records, relies on the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019 (5) SCC 688), which permits quashing non‑compoundable offences in circumstances where the dispute is private and resolved, particularly where the offences are civil in character. The Laxmi Narayan decision also cites Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, underscoring limits and considerations for quashing (e.g., heinous/offences of public interest). On these footing, the court finds the dispute private, the settlement genuine, and considers the antecedents of the accused. Consequently, the criminal miscellaneous case is allowed and all further proceedings in CC 291/2021 are quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)Section 320 IPCSections 341, 323, 324 r/w 34 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Power under Section 482 CrPC to quash non‑compoundable offences where the dispute is private and settled, especially civil/matrimonial/family disputes.
  • Not to exercise such power for heinous/serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc.
  • Not to quash offences under special statutes or offences by public servants in the relevant capacity.
  • Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act are serious and cannot be quashed solely on the basis of compromise; scrutiny may be required to see if charge under Section 307 IPC is made out.
  • When exercising quashing powers, consider the antecedents of the accused, the conduct of the accused, whether the accused was absconding, and how the settlement was arrived at.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and do not wish to pursue prosecution; they rely on the victim’s affidavit supporting the settlement and seeking quashing of proceedings.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor initially expressed reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement but concedes the dispute is settled and the victim has no objection to quashing.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others2019 (5) SCC 688PositiveThe apex court’s framework for quashing non‑compoundable offences when the dispute is private and settled is adopted by the Kerala High Court.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another2012 (10) SCC 303PositiveCited as part of the jurisprudential lineage underpinning the Laxmi Narayan framework.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another2014 (6) SCC 466PositiveCited in the discussion of the limits and application of quashing under Section 482 CrPC in private settlements.

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 State of Kerala v Hashim, Mohammed Ameen, Huwaiz, Huwaiz Muhammed 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 FRIDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945** **CRL.MC NO. 9622 OF 2023** **CRIME NO.78/2021 OF Changaramkulam Police Station, Malappuram AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 291/2021 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF** **FIRST CLASS -I, PONNANI** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO 1 TO 4:** 1 HASHIM, AGED 22 YEARS S/OSHAHUL HAMEED, VYSHAM VEETTIL,MANALI,CHERANALLORE P.O,THLAPPALLY, KERALA, PIN - 680582 2 MOHAMMED AMEEN AGED 21 YEARS S/O. MOIDUTTY,POTTAMMEL VAKAYIL HOUSE,PAINKANNUR P.O,KUTTIPURAM,KERALA, PIN - 676552 3 HUWAIZ AGED 23 YEARS S/O UMMER, KARIYA MAKKANATH HOUSE,PONNANI P.O,CHANTHAPPADI,KERALA, PIN - 679577 4 HUWAIZ MUHAMMED AGED 22 YEARS S/O MUHAMMED, THEKKINKKATTIL HOUSE,ERAVAKKAD P.O,CHANTHAPPADI,KERALA, PIN - 679552 BY ADVS. JOEMON ANTONY SHERRY J. THOMAS ANTONY NILTON REMELO ## **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 SHELJAAS AGED 23 YEARS S/O. BAVA, , KOOTTUMAADATHIL HOUSE, OTHALOOR, OTHALOOR Crl.M.C.No.9622 of 2023 2 P.O., KERALA MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679591 BY ADV. SRI. M.P PRASANTH, PP SRI.JOSEPH C.V. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.No.9622 of 2023 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** **------------------------------** **Crl.M.C.No.9622 of 2023** **---------------------------------------------Dated this the 01[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.291/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I, Ponnani arising from Crime No.78/2021 of Changaramkulam Police Station. The above case is chargesheeted against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324 r/w 34 IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused wrongfully confined the victim and assaulted the victim and the victim sustained injuries. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Crl.M.C.No.9622 of 2023 4 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 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 Crl.M.C.No.9622 of 2023 5 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 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_ Crl.M.C.No.9622 of 2023 6 ## _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 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 Crl.M.C.No.9622 of 2023 7 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.291/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I, Ponnani arising from Crime No.78/2021 of Changaramkulam Police Station are quashed. Sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** DM Crl.M.C.No.9622 of 2023 8 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 9622/2023** PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR AND FIS IN CRIME NO.78/2021 OF CHANGARAMKULAM POLICE STATION IN MALAPPURAM DISTRICT DATED 5-3-2021 ANNEXURE A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC. NO. 291/2021 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PONNANI IN CRIME NO. 78/2021 OF CHANGARAMKULAM POLICE STATION IN MALAPPURAM DISTRICT ANNEXURE A3 THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 21-6-2023 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE