Kerala High Court

Noushad vs State Of Kerala on 13 September, 2023

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 22ND BHADRA, 1945
                      CRL.MC NO. 5918 OF 2023
  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 942/2014 OF JUDICIAL FIRST
                 CLASS   MAGISTRATE COURT, ADOOR
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:


           NOUSHAD, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMAD MUSTHAFFA,
           CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, ELAMANNUR MURI,
           ENADIMANGALAM VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.,
           PIN - 691524

           BY ADV P.V.DILEEP


RESPONDENTS/STATE, COMPLAINANT, DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND
VICTIM:
    1      STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC
           PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM., PIN -
           682031

    2      THE STATION HOUSE OFFICE, RENATHU POLICE STATION,
           ENATHU .P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 691526

    3      HASEEM, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL AZEES, KALLUVETTI
           LEKSHAM VEEDU COLONY, FROM HAZEEM BHAVANAM, MANNADI
           MURI, MANNADI P.O, KADAMPANAD VILLAGE,
           PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 691530

    4      SHAKEENA, AGED 34 YEARS, W/O. HAZEEM, KALLUVETTI
           LEKSHAM VEEDU COLONY, FROM HAZEEM BHAVANAM,
           MEMANADY MURI, MANNADI P.O, KADAMPANAD VILLAGE,
           PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 691530


OTHER PRESENT:
          SEENA. C, PP


     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRL.MC No.6530 of 2023

                               2

                   P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
              ---------------------
                  CRL.MC No.6530 of 2023
          ---------------------------
          Dated this the 13th 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 C.C.No.942/2014

on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,

Adoor arising from Crime No.207/2014 of Enathu Police

Station. The above case is charge sheeted against the

petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 447,

294(b), 341, 323 and 324 IPC.

3. The prosecution case is that the accused

trespassed into the property of the victims and wrongfully

restrained them and assaulted them using filthy language.

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 victims in support of his CRL.MC No.6530 of 2023

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 affidavit 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 CRL.MC No.6530 of 2023

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 CRL.MC No.6530 of 2023

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. CRL.MC No.6530 of 2023

Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous case is allowed.

All further proceedings against the petitioner in

C.C.No.942/2014 on the files of the Judicial First Class

Magistrate Court, Adoor arising from Crime No.207/2014 of

Enathu Police Station are quashed.

Sd/-