High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed the criminal proceedings in CC 1315/201...

Suhair, Suhail, Sameer and Vaheeda v. State of Kerala and others

Case / Petition Number:CRL.MC 6503 of 2023
Neutral Citation:/null

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date
2023-09-13
Court Decision / Holding
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in CC No.1315/2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal, arising from Crime No.1342/2017, are quashed under Section 482 CrPC, in light of the private nature of the dispute, the settlement between parties, and the victims’ consent, guided by Supreme Court precedents on quashing non‑compoundable offences.
Final Disposition
Quashed the criminal proceedings in CC 1315/2018; proceedings against accused Nos. 1–4 were terminated in light of the private settlement and victims’ consent under 482 CrPC.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Suhair
  • Suhail
  • Sameer
  • Vaheeda

Respondents

  • State of Kerala, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
  • Station House Officer, Kadinamkulam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District
  • Maheen
  • Muhammed Rasheed

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Adv Anjana Kannath

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Vipin Narayan, Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court of Kerala Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 CrPC challenges the order in CC 1315/2018 arising from Crime No.1342/2017 of Kadinamkulam Police Station. Accused Nos.1 to 4 are charged under IPC sections 294(b), 323, and 506(ii) read with 34, for allegedly assaulting the victims, using filthy language, and criminally intimidating them. The petitioners contend that the parties have resolved the entire dispute through settlement and the victims have supported quashing the proceedings, as evidenced by affidavits. The Public Prosecutor initially voiced reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement but acknowledged the dispute’s settlement. The Court considered the submissions, records, and affidavits and invoked the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Laxmi Narayan (State of MP) and related decisions, including Gian Singh and Narinder Singh. The Court observed that the dispute is private in nature and the offences are non-heinous, with no public-interest factors preventing quashing, and that the law permits exercise of 482 CrPC to quash when parties have resolved their disputes. It emphasized scrutiny of antecedents, but found no reason to withhold quashing. Consequently, the court allowed the CRL.MC and quashed all further proceedings in CC 1315/2018 against the petitioners, highlighting settlement and victims’ consent as central to the decision.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Section 294(b) IPCSection 323 IPCSection 506(ii) IPCSection 34 IPCSection 320 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Power under Section 482 CrPC to quash non‑compoundable offences where settlement is achieved and the dispute is private in nature (Laxmi Narayan, 2019 (5) SCC 688)
  • Non‑quashing for heinous or public-interest offences (e.g., S.307 IPC, Arms Act, offences under Special Statutes)
  • Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another (2012 (10) SCC 303) – guidance on exercising powers under S.482
  • Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others (2014 (6) SCC 466) – harmonization of principles from older decisions
  • A court may examine whether incorporation of S.307 IPC is for form over substance and proceed after evidence is collected; not permissible during investigation
  • Antecedents/conduct of the accused to be weighed when considering quashing under 482 CrPC

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners urged that the dispute with the victims has been settled amicably and that the victims have sworn affidavits in support of quashing the prosecution under Sec. 482 CrPC. They submitted that continuing the case contradicts the civil character of the dispute and that quashing would end the hardship of the accused while preserving the victims’ consent.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor stated reservations about quashing solely due to the settlement but conceded that the matter has been settled and the victims have no objection to quashing, subject to appropriate considerations of public interest and the law.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
State of Madhya Pradesh v Laxmi Narayan and Others2019 (5) SCC 688PositiveCited to support the principle that non-compoundable offences with predominantly civil/private character can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC when parties settle and there is no aggression on public interest.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another2012 (10) SCC 303PositiveCited for guidance on exercising the inherent powers under 482 CrPC while balancing settlement with the need to consider the scope and nature of the offences.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others2014 (6) SCC 466PositiveCited for extract of paragraph 13 and the nuanced test to determine when quashing is appropriate, including the nature of offence and settlement effects.
State of Punjab and another2014 (6) SCC 466PositiveCited within the Narinder Singh discussion as part of the same precedent discussed by the court; reinforces the settlement-based quashing framework.

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 Suhair, Suhail, Sameer and Vaheeda v. State of Kerala 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 WEDNESDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 22ND BHADRA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 6503 OF 2023** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 1315/2018 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I,ATTINGAL** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4:** 1 SUHAIR, AGED 27 YEARS,S/O.MAHEEN, S.S.NIVAS, NEAR IRSHADIYA COLLEGE, MASTHAN MUKKU, KANIYAPURAM DESOM, KADINAMKULAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -, PIN - 695303 2 SUHAIL,AGED 29 YEARS,S/O. MAHEEN, S.S.NIVAS, NEAR IRSHADIYA COLLEGE, MASTAN MUKKU, KANIYAPURAM DESOM, KADINAMKULAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -, PIN - 695303 3 SAMEER,AGED 41 YEARS,S/O.HABEEBULLA, SAFEER MANZIL, MALAMELPARAMBU, KANIYAPURAM DESOM, KADINAMKULAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -, PIN - 695303 4 VAHEEDA,AGED 50 YEARS,W/O.MAHEEN, SAFEER MANZIL, MALAMELPARAMBU, KANIYAPURAM DESOM, KADINAMKULAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -, PIN - 695303 BY ADV ANJANA KANNATH ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND INJURED:** 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KADINAMKULAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695303 3 MAHEEN,AGED 61 YEARS,S/O.MUHAMMED SAHEED, S.S.NIVAS, MASTHANMUKKU, NEAR IRSHADIYA COLLEGE, KANIYAPURAM, KADINAMKULAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-, PIN - 695303 4 MUHAMMED RASI,AGED 30 YEARS,S/O.ABDUL RASHEED, RASI MANZIL, KAMPIKKAKOM, PALLINADA, CHITTATTUMUKKU, CRL.MC No.6503 of 2023 2 KADINAMKULAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-, PIN - 695303 ## **OTHER PRESENT:** VIPIN NARAYAN PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.MC No.6503 of 2023 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** CRL.MC No.6503 of 2023 **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** Dated this the 13[th] day of September, 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. The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.1315/2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal arising from Crime No.1342/2017 of Kadinamkulam Police Station. The above case is charge sheeted against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(ii) r/w Section 34 IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused assaulted the victims and used filthy language and even criminally intimidated them. 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 CRL.MC No.6503 of 2023 4 on the affidavit 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 affidavit filed by the victims. 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.** CRL.MC No.6503 of 2023 5 ## **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 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_ CRL.MC No.6503 of 2023 6 _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 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. CRL.MC No.6503 of 2023 7 Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous case is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.1315/2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal arising from Crime No.1342/2017 of Kadinamkulam Police Station are quashed. Sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** bng CRL.MC No.6503 of 2023 8 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6503/2023** PETITIONERS ANNEXURES Annexure A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO. 1342/2017 OF KADINAMKULAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT DATED 5.12.2017 Annexure A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 1342/2017 OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL POLICE STATION DATED 23.7.2018 Annexure A3 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 2.8.2023 Annexure A4 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 2.8.2023