Kerala High Court
A.E.Ubaid vs State Of Kerala on 5 September, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 14TH BHADRA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 1608 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT SC 161/2021 OF SUB COURT,
HOSDRUG
PETITIONER/S:
A.E.UBAID, AGED 25 YEARS
S/O MUHAMMED, ITTAMMAL, NEAR IQBAL SCHOOL,
AJANUR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-, PIN - 671531
BY ADVS.
ROSIN JOSEPH
AMRITA ARUN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 VISHAK K.V
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O KUNHIKANNAN, R AT VIDHYANILAYAM KOVVAL,
AVIKKARA, KANHANGAD P.O., HOSDURG VILLAGE,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671315
3 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
HOSDURG POLICE STATION, (CRIME NO. 933 OF 2016).
KASARAGOD DISTRICT-, PIN - 671315
BY ADV JACKSON JOHNY
OTHER PRESENT:
SEENA. C PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
Crl.M.C No. 1608 of 2022
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
======================================================
Crl.M.C No. 1608 of 2022
=============================================================
Dated this the 5th 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. The petitioner is the accused in SC No.161 of 2021 of
Assistant Sessions Judge -Hosdurg arising from Crime No.933 of
2016 of Hosdurg Police Station, Kasaragod.
3. The above case is charge sheeted against the petitioner and
other accused alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147,
148, 341, 323, 308, 427 read with 149 IPC. Annexure A is the final
report. The other accused were already acquited as per Annexure A3
judgment. It is submitted that the victim has no grievance against the
petitioner also.
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
Crl.M.C No. 1608 of 2022
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/s 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
Crl.M.C No. 1608 of 2022
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
Crl.M.C No. 1608 of 2022
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."
Crl.M.C No. 1608 of 2022
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 SC No.161 of 2021 on the
file of Assistant Sessions Judge-Hosdurg, arising from Crime No.933
of 2016 of Hosdurg Police Station, Kasaragod are quashed.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
das
Crl.M.C No. 1608 of 2022
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1608/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR DATED
12.09.2016 IN CRIME NO. 933 OF 2016 OF
HOSDURG POLICE STATION
Annexure A2 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT
DATED 30.11.2016 IN CRIME NO. 933 OF
2016 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION
Annexure A3 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED
20.02.2021 IN S.C NO. 553/2018 OF THE
COURT OF SESSION , KASARAGOD DIVISION
AT HOSDURG
Annexure A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED
25.02.2022 SIGNED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT BEFORE
AN ADVOCATE
