Kerala High Court
Shameer vs State Of Kerala on 21 December, 2023
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA,
1945
CRL.MC NO. 10424 OF 2023
CRIME NO.1094/2014 OF Pandalam Police Station,
Pathanamthitta
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT SC 264/2018 OF DISTRICT COURT&
SESSIONS COURT,PATHANAMTHITTA
PETITIONER/S:
1 SHAMEER, AGED 31 YEARS
S/O SHAJI,SHAMMER MANZIL,MANGARAM MURI ,PANDALAM
VILLAGE ,PANDALAM P.O,PATHANMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN
- 689501
2 RANEESH A GADHAR @SHAMSU ,AGED 36 YEARS
S/O ABDUL KHADER ,ULAYAMADATHIL VEEDU,TONALLUR
MURI ,PANDALM VILLAGE ,PANDALAM
P.O,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689501
BY ADV VINEETH V.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 NIYAS N, AGED 31 YEARS
RESIDING AT ULAMAYIL LAKSHAM VEEDU COLONY,
THONNALUUR MURI,PANDALM,KURUMPALA VILLAGE ,ADOOR
TALUK ,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689501
BY ADV ABHILASH M.J
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT SREEJA V, PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 21.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
-2-
Crl.M.C No. 10424 of 2023
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
======================================================
Crl.M.C No. 10424 of 2023
=============================================================
Dated this the 21st 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 SC No.264 of 2018 on the file
of the District & Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta, arising from Crime
No.1094 of 2014 of Pandalam Police Station, Pathanamthitta. The
above case is charge sheeted alleging offence punishable under
Section 308 read with 34 IPC and also under the provisions of Indian
Arms Act.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused attacked the victim
and victim sustained injury. Accused also committed the offence
under the Arms Act. But admittedly this is not a notified area.
Therefore, the offence under the Arms Act will not attract.
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 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 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 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 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.
Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous case is allowed. All
further proceedings against the petitioners in SC No.264 of 2018 on
the file of the District & Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta, arising from
Crime No.1094 of 2014 of Pandalam Police Station, Pathanamthitta
are quashed.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
das
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 10424/2023
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure I THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
NO. 1094 OF 2014 OF THE PANDALAM POLICE
STATION DATED 04/08/2014
Annexure II THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT
IN SC 264/2018 OF THE DISTRICT &
SESSIONS COURT ,PATHANAMTHITTA DATED
03/11/2014
Annexure III ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 17/11/2023
