Kerala High Court
Davood S. @ Hakeem vs Asif 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. 10789 OF 2023
CRIME NO.38/2018 OF Kumbla Police Station, Kasargod
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 722/2021 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
FIRST CLASS -II, KASARAGOD
PETITIONER(S)/3RD ACCUSED:
DAVOOD S. @ HAKEEM
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O. SOOPPI, ARIKKADY KUNNIL HOUSE,ARIKKADY VILLAGE,
KASARAGOD, PIN - 671321
BY ADV ANN SUSAN GEORGE
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:
1 ASIF
AGED 22 YEARS
S/O. HAMEED, B. A. MANZIL, ARIKADY VILLAGE, BANNAKULAM,
KUMBLA, KASARAGOD, PIN - 671321
2 MOHAMMED A. K
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O. ABDUL KADER, ARIKADY KUNNIL,ARIKADY VILLAGE,
KUMBLA,KASARAGOD, PIN - 671321
3 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
KUMBLA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671321
4 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
BY ADV. SRI RENJITH T.R., PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.10789 of 2023
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.10789 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. Petitioner is the 3rd accused in C.C.No.722/2021
on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II,
Kasaragod arising from Crime No.38/2018 of Kumbla
Police Station. The above case is charge sheeted against
the petitioners alleging offences punishable under
Sections 341, 323, 324 506(ii) r/w 34 IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused
wrongfully confined the victim and assaulted the victim
and also criminally intimidated the victim.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the parties have settled their dispute and do not wish
to pursue the prosecution proceedings. The counsel relies
on the affidavits 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
petitioner, victims and the Public Prosecutor and has also
gone through the records including the affidavits 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. 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 petitioner in
C.C.No.722/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court-II, Kasaragod arising from Crime
No.38/2018 of Kumbla Police Station are quashed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
DM JUDGE
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 10789/2023
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE.I THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT
IN C. C. NO. 722 / 2021 ON THE FILES
OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
/ 2018 OF KUMBLA POLICE STATION,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT
ANNEXURE.II THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 29.11.2023. SWORN
IN BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1
ANNEXURE.III THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 29.11.2023. SWORN
IN BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL
//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE
