Kerala High Court
Asif 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. 10876 OF 2023
CRIME NO.42/2021 OF Vallikunnam Police Station, Alappuzha
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 370/2021 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
FIRST CLASS , KAYAMKULAM
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 10:
1 ASIF, AGED 26 YEARS
S/O. NISHAR, SHEELAMTHARA VEETTIL, KRISHNAPURAM MURI,
KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, KERALA,
INDIA, PIN - 690501
2 NOWFAL, AGED 26 YEARS
S/O. KUNJHUMON, SHEELAMTHARA KIZHAKATHIL VEETTIL,
KRISHNAPURAM MURI, KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA
DISTRICT, KERALA, INDIA, PIN - 690501
3 JAGATH, AGED 27 YEARS
S/O. GOPAKUMAR, MANIMANDIRAM VEETTIL, KRISHNAPURAM
MURI, KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, KERALA,
INDIA, PIN - 690501
4 SAJEER, AGED 30 YEARS
S/O. HASSANKUNJHU, PUNJHAVILAMBHEL KIZHAKATHIL VEETTIL,
KRISHNAPURAM MURI, KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA
DISTRICT, KERALA, INDIA, PIN - 690501
5 MUHAMMED THAHA, , AGED 26 YEARS
S/O. SULAIMAN KUNJHU, KANNAMKAVIL KIZHAKECHIRAYIL,
KRISHNAPURAM MURI, KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA
DISTRICT, KERALA, INDIA, PIN - 690501
6 SHAMEER, AGED 25 YEARS
S/O. RAFEEK, LIVA HOUSE, KOCHU MURI, KRISHNAPURAM
SOUTH, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, KERALA, INDIA, PIN - 690501
7 SUDHEESH, , AGED 26 YEARS
S/O. SATHEESHAN, UTHIRA KAZHI KIZHAKKATHIL,
KRISHNAPURAM MURI, KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA
DISTRICT, KERALA, INDIA, PIN -
690501
8 SHAANU, AGED 26 YEARS
Crl.M.C.No.10876 of 2023
2
S/O. SHAJI, SHAIJU MANZIL, DEVIKULANGHA MURI,
KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
KERALA, INDIA, PIN - 690501
9 ASHIQ, AGED 28 YEARS
S/O. NASSAR, CHENKARA VADAKKATHIL, KRISHNAPURAM
MURI, KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
KERALA, INDIA, PIN -
690501
10 SAJEER, AGED 28 YEARS
S/O. SHAJAHAN, SHEELANTHARA THEKKATHIL,
KRISHNAPURAM KOCHU MURI, KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, KERALA, INDIA, PIN - 690501
BY ADV. K. REMIYA RAMACHANDRAN
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 RAJESH V.R., AGED 48 YEARS
S/O. RADHAKRISHNAN, DEVI VILASAM, KARAZHMA
MURI, VALLIKUNNAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
KERALA, INDIA, PIN - 690501
BY ADV.
SRI. HRITHWIK C.S., 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.10876 of 2023
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.10876 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 C.C.No.370/2021
on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I,
Kayamkulam arising from Crime No.42/2021 of
Vallikunnam Police Station. The above case is charge
sheeted against the petitioners alleging offences
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 427 r/w
149 IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused formed
themselves into an unlawful assembly and with
dangerous weapons trespassed into the house of the
defacto complainant and committed mischief.
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
C.C.No.370/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court-I, Kayamkulam arising from Crime
No.42/2021 of Vallikunnam Police Station are quashed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
DM JUDGE
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 10876/2023
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST
INFORMATION REPORT DATED 17/01/2021 IN
CRIME NO. 42/2021 OF VALLIKUNNAM
POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT
ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT
DATED 27/01/2021 IN C.C. 370/2021 IN
THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
FIRST CLASS-I, KAYAMKULAM
ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED
15/08/2023 FURNISHED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL
//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE
