State of Kerala v. Muhammed Farhant K, Muhammed, Muhammed Faizal, Asifa, Muhammed Nissar

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V THURSDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 11TH JYAISHTA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 2693 OF 2023`** ``` AGAINSTCC270/2016OFJUDICIALMAGISTRATEOFFIRSTCLASS -I,PERINTHALMANNA CRIMENO.1407/2015OFPERINTHALMANNAPOLICESTATION ``` ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 5 :`** ``` 1MUHAMMEDFARHANTK AGED28YEARS S/O.AKBARSHAJAHANC.K.CHERADAKURIKKALHOUSE, PUTHANANGADIP.O.,ANGADIPPURAM, - MALAPPURAMDISTRICT.,PIN679321 2MUHAMMED AGED55YEARS S/O.HAMZA,KODUVAYIKKALHOUSE,PUTHANANGADIP.O., ANGADIPPURAM,PERINTHALMANNA,MALAPPURAMDISTRICT., - PIN679321 3MUHAMMEDFAIZAL AGED38YEARS S/O.MUHAMMEDKUNHI,PATHARIKUMBALATHODIHOUSE, PUTHANANGADI.P.O.,ANGADIPPURAM,PERINTHALMANNA, - MALAPPURAMDISTRICT,PIN679321 4ASIFA AGED28YEARS S/OYOUSUF,ALIKKALHOUSE,PUTHANANGADI, - ANGADIPPURAM,MALAPPURAMDISTRICT.,PIN679321 5MUHAMMEDNISSAR AGED31YEARS YEARS,S/O.USMAN,ALIKKALHOUSE,VYLONGARA, PUTHANANGADI,ANGADIPPURAMP.O.,PERINTHALMANNA, - MALAPPURAMDISTRICT,PIN679321 BYADVU.K.DEVIDAS ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` CRL.MCNO.2693OF2023 ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT :`** ``` 1STATEOFKERALA REPRESENTEDBYTHEPUBLICPROSECUTOR, - HIGHCOURTOFKERALA,ERNAKULAM,PIN682031 2MUHAMMEDFIROSEPT AGED33YEARS S/O.ABDUP.T.,PALLIYALTHODYHOUSE, PUTHANANGADIP.O.,ANGADIPPURAM, - PERINTHALMANNA,MALAPPURAMDISTRICT.,PIN679321 3HAKKEEMC AGED36YEARS S/O.ABDULLA,CHRNIYILHOUSE,VENGADP.O., MOORKKANAD,PERINTHALMANNA, - MALAPPURAMDISTRICT,PIN679338 4SHIJUCP AGED32YEARS S/O.KUNJAN,CHUNDEPARAMBILHOUSE, PUTHANANGADIP.O.,ANGADIPPURAM,PERINTHALMANNA, - MALAPPURAMDISTRICT,PIN679321 BYADVP.M.SHAHIDA ``` ``` SRIVIPINNARAYANSRPP ``` ``` THISCRIMINALMISC.CASEHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON 01.06.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYPASSEDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` ``` CRL.MCNO.2693OF2023 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **ORDER** This petition is filed invoking the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for the sake of brevity). 2. The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 to 5 in C.C. No.270/2016 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Perinthalmanna. In the aforesaid case, they are accused of having committed offenses punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, and 324 r/w Section 149 of IPC. 3. The prosecution allegation is that on 07.11.2015 at 7.30 hours, the petitioners formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, attacked respondents 2 to 4 with wooden sticks and stones and caused injuries. 4. Sri. U.K.Devidas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the parties have settled their disputes and they are not desirous of pursuing the prosecution proceedings. Reliance is placed on the affidavits filed by respondents 2 to 4, and it is argued that they have stated in unequivocal terms that they have no subsisting grievance against the petitioners. According to the ``` CRL.MCNO.2693OF2023 ``` ``` 4 ``` learned counsel, if the proceedings are terminated, recording the amicable settlement, the parties can embark upon their future paths in an atmosphere of tranquility and mutual respect. At any rate, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and the continuance of criminal proceedings would only put the parties to great oppression and prejudice. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing the criminal proceedings. It is submitted that the Apex Court in **State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan,[1]** has laid down the principles and had observed that quashing of proceedings on the basis of settlement would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. He would point out that the Apex Court had observed that while quashing the proceedings, the court will have to consider whether the crime is against the society or against an individual alone and also the character, conduct, and antecedents of the accused. He would point out that the 1st accused is involved in as many as five crimes, viz., Crime Nos.1407/2015, 1717/2013, 221/2014, 40/2013, and 164/2023 of the Perinthalmanna Police station. Insofar as the 4th accused is concerned, he is accused in ten crimes, viz., Crime No. 783/2016, 450/2018, 318/2019, 363/2019, 793/2020, 62/2021, 464/2019, 605/2020, 1407/2015 and 264/2019. It is also > 1 (2019) 5 SCC 688 ``` CRL.MCNO.2693OF2023 ``` ``` 5 ``` submitted that proceedings under Section 107 of the Cr. P.C has also been initiated against him. In so far as the 5th accused is concerned, he is accused in Crime Nos. 1407/2015, 783/2016, 645/2018, 264/2019, and 1717/2013. It is further submitted that the 5th accused has also been included in the rowdy list of the Perinthalmanna police station. 6. I have considered the submissions and have gone through the records. 7. In **State of M.P (supra),** a three-judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has summarised the law as laid down in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab[2]** , **Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab[3]** , **State of Rajasthan v. Shambhu Kewat[4]** , **State of M.P. v. Deepak[5] , State of M.P. v. Manish[6]** , **J. Ramesh Kamath v. Mohana Kurup[7]** ; **State of M.P. v. Rajveer Singh[8]** , **Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat[9] , State of M.P. v. Kalyan Singh[10] and State of M.P. v. Dhruv Gurjar[11]** . It was laid down as under: > 2 (2012) 10 SCC 303 > 3 2014 (6) SCC 466 > 4 (2014) 4 SCC 149 > 5 (2014) 10 SCC 285 > 6 (2015) 8 SCC 307 > 7 2016) 12 SCC 179 > 8 (2016) 12 SCC 471 > 9 (2017) 9 SCC 641 > 10 (2019) 4 SCC 268 > 11 (2019) 5 SCC 570] ``` CRL.MCNO.2693OF2023 ``` ``` 6 ``` 15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under: - 15.1. That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 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; - 15.2. 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; - 15.3. Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like the 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; 15.4. Offences under Section 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 Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act, etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 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 Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would ``` CRL.MCNO.2693OF2023 ``` ``` 7 ``` be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 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 Section 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/delicate 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 paras 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; 15.5. While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offenses, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impact 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. The petitioners are involved in a multitude of crimes during the past several years. Needless to say, their continuous involvement necessarily has ``` CRL.MCNO.2693OF2023 ``` ``` 8 ``` societal ramifications. It will have to be construed as a transgression infringing upon the fabric of society rather than a private dispute. Consequently, it is infeasible to terminate the ongoing criminal proceedings on the basis of a settlement arrived at with the de facto complainants. This Court is also unsure whether the settlement was arrived at with a free or open mind or whether it was obtained by threat or coercion, given the criminal antecedents of the accused and their propensity to involve in crimes disturbing the peace, one after the other. I have no doubt in my mind that the action of the petitioners in continuously engaging in crimes has a significant and adverse societal impact. The Apex Court had also observed that while considering the prayer for quashing on the basis of settlement, this Court is bound to consider the antecedents and conduct of the accused and the manner in which the accused had managed to enter into a compromise. Having considered the facts and circumstances and the antecedents of the petitioners, I am not inclined to exercise the powers conferred on this Court under Section 482 of the Code to put a premature end to the prosecution. This petition is accordingly dismissed. As it is brought to my notice that the proceedings are pending before the learned Magistrate since the year 2015, there will be a direction to the learned Magistrate to expedite the matter and take the matter to its logical conclusion at ``` CRL.MCNO.2693OF2023 ``` ``` 9 ``` the earliest. It is made clear that the observations as regards the antecedents of the petitioners herein have been made only for the purpose of disposal of this matter, and the learned Magistrate can consider the case of the petitioners untrammeled by any of the observations above. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE** NS ``` CRL.MCNO.2693OF2023 ``` ``` 10 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2693/2023`** ``` PETITIONERANNEXURES AnnexureI ``` ``` CERTIFIEDCOPYOFTHEFINALREPORTINCRIME NO.1407/2015OFPERINTHALMANNAPOLICESTATION DATED27.12.2015 ``` ``` AnnexureIICERTIFIEDCOPYOFTHELISTOFWITNESSESIN CRIMENO.1407OF2015OFPERINTHALMANNAPOLICE STATIONDATED27.12.2015 ``` ``` Annexure-IIIORIGINALOFTHEAFFIDAVITDATED17.03.2023 EXECUTEDBYTHESECONDRESPONDENT Annexure4ORIGINALOFTHEAFFIDAVITDATED17.03.2023 EXECUTEDBYTHETHIRDRESPONDENT Annexure-VORIGINALOFTHEAFFIDAVITDATED17.03.2023 EXECUTEDBYTHEFOURTHRESPONDENT ```