Kerala High Court
Muhammed Rafi vs State Of Kerala on 18 September, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 27TH BHADRA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 7105 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT SC 462/2019 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
COURT & SESSIONS COURT - II, MANJERI / II ADDITIONAL MACT, MANJERI
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4:
1 MUHAMMED RAFI
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O. ALAVI RESIDING AT ARYANTHODIKA HOUSE,
PERAKAMANNA AMSOM, EDAVANA,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676541
2 FAISAL
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O. ALAVI RESIDING AT ARYANTHODIKA HOUSE,
PERAKAMANNA AMSOM, EDAVANA,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676541
3 SHAMEEL
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O MUHAMMED RAFI, RESIDING AT ARYANTHODIKA HOUSE,
PERAKAMANNA AMSOM, EDAVANA,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 676541
4 SHAMEEM
AGED 25 YEARS
S/O MUHAMMED RAFI, RESIDING AT ARYANTHODIKA HOUSE,
PERAKAMANNA AMSOM, EDAVANA,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 676541
BY ADV P.SAMSUDIN
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
Crl.M.C.No.7105 of 2023
2
2 ABDUL RASHEED
AGED 50 YEARS
ARYANTHODIKA HOUSE,
PERAKAMANNA AMSOM, EDAVANA,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676541
BY ADV.
SRI.HRITWICK C.S., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 18.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.7105 of 2023
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.7105 of 2023
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th 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.No.462/2019 on the file of the Additional
Sessions Court - II, Manjeri arising from Crime
No.213/2018 of Edavanna Police Station. The
above case is registered against the petitioners
alleging offences punishable under Sections 308
r/w 34 IPC.
Crl.M.C.No.7105 of 2023
3. The prosecution case is that the accused
assaulted the defacto complainant and he
sustained serious injuries.
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.
Crl.M.C.No.7105 of 2023
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
Crl.M.C.No.7105 of 2023
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
Crl.M.C.No.7105 of 2023
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.7105 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 in
S.C.No.462/2019 on the file of the Additional
Sessions Court - II, Manjeri arising from Crime
No.213/2018 of Edavanna Police Station are
quashed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
DM JUDGE
Crl.M.C.No.7105 of 2023
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7105/2023
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE-A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN
CRIME NO. 213/2018 OF EDAVANA
POLICE STATION DATED 01-12-2018
ANNEXURE-A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL
REPORT IN CRIME NO. 213/2018 OF
EDAVANA POLICE STATION DATED 26-
12-2018
ANNEXURE-A3 THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT DATED 11-
08-2023 SWORN IN BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS :NIL
//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE
