Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs N.S. Aboobakkar on 6 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:44774-DB
CRL.A No.1393 of 2019
C/W CRL.A No.1261 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1393 OF 2019 (A)
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1261 OF 2019(A)
IN CRL.A NO.1393/2019
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY P.S.I., SULLIA POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-01.
- APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M. DIWAKAR MADDUR, HCGP)
AND:
1. N.S. ABOOBAKKAR S/O LATE ABDUL KHADRI,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT THAYIRA MANJIL,
Digitally signed by SUNNAMOOLE HOUSE, KANAKAMAJALU VILLAGE,
VEERENDRA
KUMAR K M SULLIA TALUK-574239.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. K.C. SULAIMAN S/O K.C. ABDUL KUNHI,
KARNATAKA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT K.C. MANJIL,
SUNNAMOOLE HOUSE, KANAKAMAJALU VILLAGE,
SULLIA TALUK-574239.
3. N.S. MOHAMMED KUNHI @ MOHAMED
S/O LATE ABDUL KHADRI, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT THAYIRA MANJIL, SUNNAMOOLE HOUSE,
KANAKAMAJALU VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK-574239.
4. K.C. MOHAMMED ALI S/O LATE K.C.ABDUL KHADRI,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT K.C. MANJIL,
SUNNAMOOLE HOUSE, KANAKAMAJALU VILLAGE,
SULLIA TALUK-574239.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:44774-DB
CRL.A No.1393 of 2019
C/W CRL.A No.1261 of 2019
5. S MOHAMMED S/O S. KUNHIPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT SUNNAMOOLE HOUSE,
KANAKAMAJALU VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK-574239.
6. S.M. YUSUF @ ESUBU S., S/O LATE ABDUL RAJAK,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT SUNNAMOOLE HOUSE,
KANAKAMAJALU VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK-574239.
7. S.S. ABDULLA S/O LATE MAMAYI BEARY,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT SUNNAMOOLE HOUSE,
KANAKAMAJALU VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK-574239.
8. THOTUNGURA ABDULLA @ P.A.ABDULLA,
S/O S. KUNHIPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT SUNNAMOOLE HOUSE, KANAKAMAJALU VILLAGE,
SULLIA TALUK-574239.
- RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. AMAR CORREA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R8)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 378(1) AND (3) OF THE CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND
ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 31.12.2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAKSHINA
KANNADA, MANGALURU SITTING AT PUTTUR, DAKSHINA KANNADA
IN SESSIONS CASE NO.51/2014 & ETC.,
IN CRL.A NO.1261/2019
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SULLIA POLICE STATION,
R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, BANGALORE-01.
- APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M. DIWAKAR MADDUR, HCGP)
AND:
1. A.P. RAHIMAN, S/O U.P. ABDULLA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT SHAALIMAR VILLA,
SUNNAMOOLE HOUSE, KANAKAMAJALU VILLAGE,
SULLIA TALUK-574239.
2. ADRU KADIKADKA S/O ABOOBAKKAR,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT KADIKADKA HOUSE,
JALSURU VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK-574239.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:44774-DB
CRL.A No.1393 of 2019
C/W CRL.A No.1261 of 2019
3. A.P. NAZEEZ @ PAAPU S/O K. SATTHAR,
AGED 35 YEARS, R/AT SHALIMAR VILLA,
SUNNAMOOLE HOUSE, KANAKAMAJALU VILLAGE,
SULLIA TALUK-574239.
4. A.P. RAHEEM S/O U.P. ABDULLA,
AGED 38 YEARS, R/AT SHALIMAR VILLA,
SUNNAMOOLE HOUSE, KANAKAMAJALU VILLAGE,
SULLIA TALUK-574239.
5. ABBAS K.M. S/O MOOSA KUNHI,
AGED 40 YEARS, R/AT GOUSIYA MANJIL, SUNNAMOOLE,
KANAKAMAJALU VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK-574239.
6. A.K. KHADER S/O A.K. ABDULLA,
AGED 41 YEARS, R/AT KANJALPADDY HOUSE,
KANAKAMAJALU VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK-574239.
7. A.K. ASHRAF S/O LATE ABBAS U.K.,
AGED 39 YEARS, R/AT KANJALPADDY HOUSE,
KANAKAMAJALU VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK-574239.
8. S. ABDUL KUNHI S/O SAHEEDU,
AGED 40 YEARS, R/AT SUNNAMOOLE HOUSE,
KANAKAMAJALU VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK-574239.
9. FAROOQ S/O AHAMMAD,
AGED 37 YEARS, R/AT FAROOQ MANJIL,
SUNNAMOOLE VILLAGE, KANAKAMAJALU VILLAGE,
SULLIA TALUK-574239.
- RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KRISHNAMOORTHY D., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R9)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 378(1) & (3) OF THE CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
ACQUITTAL DATED 31.12.2018 PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU SITTING AT
PUTTUR, D.K., IN S.C.NO.100/2013 & ETC.,
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 30.09.2024 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT, THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE AT DHARWAD
BENCH, SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:44774-DB
CRL.A No.1393 of 2019
C/W CRL.A No.1261 of 2019
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR)
I.A. No. 1/2023 is filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. in Crl. A. No.
1393/2019 and I.A. No. 1/2024 is also filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. in
Crl. A. No. 1261/2019. Both these appeals are filed by the
State challenging acquittal judgments in S.C. No. 51/2014 and
S.C. No. 100/2013 on the file of V Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge,
Dakshina Kannada sitting at Puttur. The applicants are the
respondents/ accused in the respective appeals.
2. The accused in S.C. No. 51/2014 faced trial for the
offences punishable u/S 143, 144, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 307
r/w 149 of IPC in relation to an incident said to have taken
place at 5.30 p.m. on 17.03.2012. The accused in S.C. No.
100/2013 faced trial for the offences punishable u/S 143, 144,
147, 148, 323, 324, 504, 506 and 307 r/w 149 of IPC. The
incident that led to two FIRs being registered is as follows:
3. The accused in both the cases are muslims. In the
madrasa attached to a masjid there were two groups called
'A.P.' and 'E.K'. The accused in S.C. No. 51/2014 belonged to
NC: 2024:KHC:44774-DB
the group 'E.K' and the accused in S.C. No. 100/2013 belonged
to the group 'A.P'. The difference between the two groups was
in connection with the texts and the method of religious
preaching to be imparted at madrasa. On 16.03.2012, a
preceptor visited the house of A.P.Abdul Rahiman, the first
accused in S.C. No. 100/2013. It appears that the accused in
S.C. No. 51/2014 ridiculed the preceptor and for this reason
there took place an altercation between the two groups. On
the next day, i.e., 17.03.2012, when A.P.Abdul Rahiman was
standing in front of his house at about 5.30 p.m. the accused in
S.C. No. 51/2014 came to that place and picked up quarrel with
him. In the course of quarrel, A.P.Abdul Rahiman sustained
injury on his head consequent to a blow said to have been
given by N.S.Abubakkar, accused no.1 in S.C. No. 51/2014.
When Abdul Rahiman shouted, A.P. Rahim and Pappu Alias
Nazeer K.P. came to that place, who also were assaulted.
Thinking that Abdul Rahiman was dead, all the accused in S.C.
No. 51/2014 left that place. Thereafter FIR was registered.
4. In relation to the same incident, the accused in S.C.
No.51/2014 registered FIR against accused in S.C. No.
100/2013 alleging assault on them.
NC: 2024:KHC:44774-DB
5. On conclusion of trial, both the cases ended in acquittal of
the accused in the respective cases.
6. We have heard the argument of Sri Amar Correa, learned
counsel for respondents1 to 8 in Criminal Appeal No.
1393/2019 and Sri Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for
respondents 1 to 9 in Criminal Appeal No. 1261/2019 and Sri
M. Divakar Maddur, HCGP for the appellant.
7. It is the argument of Sri Amar Correa that given a close
look at the background of the incident dated 17.03.2012 it can
be made out that the personal differences between two groups
in regard to following the religious practices was the main
reason. The accused in S.C. No. 51/2014 also made a counter
complaint against the accused in S.C. No. 100/2013. Now the
parties have realised their mistake and decided to live a
peaceful life. For this reason they have withdrawn mutual
allegations. Though the State has preferred these appeals, the
fact remains that the personal differences between the parties
resulted in some altercation. The offence u/S 307 IPC was
invoked in both the cases. This offence is not compoundable
and for this reason it cannot be said that the High Court is
NC: 2024:KHC:44774-DB
powerless to dismiss the appeal accepting the settlement
between the parties by invoking inherent power u/S 482 of
Cr.P.C. The wound certificates show that the injured suffered
simple injuries which would not have resulted in death.
Assuming that prosecution was able to prove its case, accused
could not have been convicted for the offence u/S 307 of IPC
and at best the trial court would have recorded conviction for
the offence u/S 324 of IPC. In the background of facts and
circumstances it cannot be said that an offence against society
had been committed inspite of charge sheet having been filed
u/s 307 of IPC. By referring to some decided cases Sri Amar
Correa pleaded for allowing the applications and putting a
quietus to the criminal cases.
8. Learned counsel for the accused-respondents in Crl. A.
No. 1261/2019 Sri Krishna Murthy. D. also urged for allowing
the applications in view of mutual allegations being withdrawn
by the accused in both the appeals.
9. Sri Divakar Maddur, learned HCGP opposed the
applications. His submissions are that the trial court has
grossly erred in recording acquittal inspite of the fact that the
NC: 2024:KHC:44774-DB
injured witnesses have supported the prosecution case. Charge
sheet was filed for the major offence of 307 of IPC which is non
compoundable. In both the cases, the injured suffered serious
injuries which might have led to death. Injuries in both the
cases might be simple, but intention of the accused was clearly
forthcoming. If they have entered into compromise, it is not a
ground for dismissing the appeals. Therefore he argued for
rejecting the applications.
10. Upon considering the arguments, the question before us
is Whether appeals can be dismissed accepting the settlement
or compromise between the quarrelling parties especially when
one of the offences invoked in the charge sheets being 307 IPC
which is non compoundable.
11. In this regard we may refer to two decisions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. In State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.
Laxminarayan & Others [2019] 5 SCC 688 a similar
question arose in view of conflicting decisions in Narinder Singh
Vs. State of Punjab [2014] 6 SCC 466 and State of Rajasthan
Vs. Shambhu Kewat [2014] 4 SCC 149. It is relevant to extract
paragraph nos. 15.4 and 15.5 here:
NC: 2024:KHC:44774-DB
"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 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 paragraphs 29.6
and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh 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
offences, 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
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:44774-DB
absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with
the complainant to enter into a compromise, etc."
12. In a latter judgment in the case of Kapil Gupta Vs.
State [NCT of Delhi] and Anr. [2022] 15 SCC 44 it is
observed as below:
"12. It can thus be seen that this Court has clearly held that
though the Court should be slow in quashing the proceedings
wherein heinous and serious offences are involved, the High Court is
not foreclosed from examining as to whether there exists material for
incorporation of such an offence or as to whether there is sufficient
evidence which if proved would lead to proving the charge for the
offence charged with. The Court has also to take into consideration
as to whether the settlement between the parties is going to result
into harmony between them which may improve their mutual
relationship.
13. The Court has further held that it is also relevant to consider
as to what is the stage of the proceedings. It has been observed
that if an application is made at a belated stage wherein the evidence
has been led and the matter is at the stage of arguments or
judgment, the Court should be slow to exercise the power to quash
the proceedings. However, if such an application is made at an initial
stage before commencement of trial, the said factor will weigh with
the court in exercising its power."
13. Therefore the above two decisions make it very clear that
the High Court can exercise power u/S 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash
the proceedings at any stage provided there exist materials to
exercise jurisdiction, the materials mean the dispute or the
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:44774-DB
incident that led to registration of FIR must appear to be purely
private or personal between the parties without any kind of
ramifications on the health and orderliness of the society. In
these cases as the facts disclose the reason for the incident
that occurred on 17.03.2012 was a quarrel that had taken
place on the previous day when the religious preceptor visited
the house of A.P.Abdul Rahiman. There were two groups in the
madrasa attached to masjid and the differences erupted in
connection with adopting the preaching method. These
differences were purely personal between the two groups
without any kind of impact on the society at large.
14. The cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence is that the
accused are presumed to be innocent of the offences till the
charges are proved against them. Now because of acquittal
judgment, the innocence of guilt is reinforced. Even if it is
assumed that the injured witnesses have supported, it cannot
be stated that conviction for the offence u/S 307 of IPC can be
recorded, for all the injured suffered simple injuries which is
evident from the wound certificates marked in both the cases.
If the testimonies of injured witnesses can be acted upon,
conviction can be recorded only for the offence u/S 324 of IPC.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:44774-DB
This is also not compoundable. The incident might be a clash
between two rival groups which hardly made any impact on the
society. If all these reasons are considered, it can be said that
this Court can exercise power u/S 482 of Cr.P.C. in view of
compromise between the two groups. Though the State has
preferred these appeals, since the victims of the incident
themselves have given consent for closing the cases, there is
no any legal impediment in the facts and circumstances of the
case for allowing the applications. Hence the following order.
ORDER
Applications filed u/S 482 of Cr.P.C. in both the appeals
are allowed.
Appeals are dismissed accepting the joint affidavits filed
in both the appeals.
Sd/-
(SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(UMESH M ADIGA)
JUDGE
Bvv
