Kerala High Court

Amal Huzain 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. 10763 OF 2023
        CRIME NO.1144/2022 OF Anchal Police Station, Kollam
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

          AMAL HUZAIN
          AGED 26 YEARS
          S/O HAKKIM HUSSAIN VARALAZHIKATHU HOUSE,ARACKAL
          THADIKKADU P.O., KOLLAM RURAL, PIN - 691306
          BY ADVS.
          RAFEEK. V.K.
          SAIJO HASSAN
          U.M.HASSAN
          SALMAN FARIS


RESPONDENT(S)/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
          KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
    2     H JAWAHAR
          AGED 55 YEARS
          ARAKKAL HOUSE, THADIKKADU,ANCHAL KOLLAM DISTRICT,
          PIN - 691306
          BY ADV. P.PARVATHY


          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:
 Crl.M.C.No.10763 of 2023


                                2




                P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
               ------------------------------
               Crl.M.C.No.10763 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 accused in Crime

No.1144/2022 of Anchal Police Station. The above case

is registered against the petitioner alleging offences

punishable under Sections 408 IPC and also under

Section 65, 70 and 72 of the Information Technology Act,

2000.

3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner with

the intention to secure access to the "Samanwaya Portal",

school without the consent of the manager and thereby

committed the abovesaid offences.

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 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

petitioner, 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 petitioner in

Crime No.1144/2022 of Anchal Police Station are

quashed.

Sd/-

                                      P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
DM                                          JUDGE







                APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 10763/2023

PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1           TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
                      1144/2022 OF ANCHAL POLICE STATION
                      DATED 02.09.2022
ANNEXURE A2           TRUE   COPY      OF   THE    LETTER   DATED
                      01.06.2022
ANNEXURE A3           TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED

20.10.2023 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN

ANNEXURE4 TRUE COPIES OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT DATED 23.11.2023

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE