Munas vs State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 10145 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
   THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 30TH BHADRA, 1945
                     CRL.MC NO. 5158 OF 2023
  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT SC 368/2017 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
   COURT & SESSIONS COURT - III, MANJERI / III ADDITIONAL MACT,
                                MANJERI
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.5 & 7:

    1     MUNAS
          AGED 36 YEARS
          S/O. KUNHIMUHAMMED.T, THOPPIL HOUSE, VELIYANCODE VIA,
          PALAPPETTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679579
    2     SIRAJ
          AGED 43 YEARS
          S/O. MUHAMMEDALI, KODIKUTHIVEEDU, AYINDHAR AMSOM,
          PALAPPETTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679579
          BY ADV P.C.MUHAMMED NOUSHIQ


RESPONDENTS/STATE - DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & ALLEGED VICTIM:

    1     THE STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
          PIN - 682031
    2     STATION HOUSE OFFICER
          PERUMPADAPPA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
          PIN - 679580
    3     SUNEER KERETH
          AGED 42 YEARS
          S/O. ABDU, PALAPETTY P.O, PUTHIYIRUTHI, AYIROOR,
          MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679579


          BY ADV.SRI.RENJITH TR PP

     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.M.C.No.5158 of 2023


                              2




            P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
           ------------------------------
            Crl.M.C.No.5158 of 2023
   ----------------------------------------------
  Dated this the 21st day of September, 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

S.C.Nos.368/2017 & 368/2021 on the file of the

Additional Sessions Court - III, Manjeri arising from

Crime No.105/2006 of Perumpadappu Police

Station. The above case is registered against the

petitioners alleging offences punishable under

Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 326, 308 r/w 149 IPC.

3. The prosecution case is that the accused Crl.M.C.No.5158 of 2023

formed themselves into an unlawful assembly,

attacked the victim which resulted in grievous hurt

to the victim and thereby committed the above said

offences. It is submitted that the 9th accused was

already acquitted as per Annexure A2 judgment.

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 Crl.M.C.No.5158 of 2023

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 Crl.M.C.No.5158 of 2023

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 Crl.M.C.No.5158 of 2023

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 Crl.M.C.No.5158 of 2023

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 S.C.Nos.368/2017 & 368/2021 on the

file of the Additional Sessions Court - III, Manjeri

arising from Crime No.105/2006 of Perumpadappu

Police Station are quashed.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN DM JUDGE Crl.M.C.No.5158 of 2023

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5158/2023

PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT ALONG WITH MEMORANDUM OF EVIDENCE IN CRIME NO. 105 OF 2006 OF PERUMBADAPPA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN S.C.

NO. 478 OF 2012 PASSED BY ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-III, MANJERI ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.11.2014 IN CRL MC NO. 6688 OF 2014 ON THE FILES OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA ANNEXURE A4 AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY RESPONDENT NO.

                   3 DATED 13.04.2023



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