Kerala High Court
Ali vs State Of Kerala on 23 April, 2024
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 3RD VAISAKHA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 3040 OF 2024
CRIME NO.780/2023 OF Perinthalmanna Police Station, Malappuram
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC NO.965 OF 2023 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, PERINTHALMANNA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
ALI
AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED,
KORAKKAKKOTTIL HOUSE, VALAPURAM P.O.,
PULAMANTHOLE, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 679323
BY ADV C.M.KAMMAPPU
RESPONDENT/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031
2 FATHIMA NISHANA
AGED 33 YEARS
D/O. MOIDEENKUTTY, PANNIYANKUNNATH HOUSE, VALLAPUZHA
AMSOM, CHOORAKKOD DESOM, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT, PIN - 679336
BY ADV K.B.UDAYAKUMAR
SMT. SEETHA S SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 3040 OF 2024
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 3040 of 2024
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of April, 2024
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 sole accused in C.C.No.965 of 2023 on
the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I,
Perinthalmanna. The above case is charge-sheeted against the
petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 448 and 352
IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused trespassed into
the house, where the defacto complainant and her daughter is
residing, with an intention to evict them and caught hold of her
hand and hence committed the offence.
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
CRL.MC NO. 3040 OF 2024
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 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 the same is extracted
hereunder:
CRL.MC NO. 3040 OF 2024
"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
CRL.MC NO. 3040 OF 2024
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 petitioner in C.C.No.965 of 2023
on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I,
CRL.MC NO. 3040 OF 2024
Perinthalmanna, arising from Crime No.780/2023 of
Perinthalmanna Police Station are quashed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
RK
CRL.MC NO. 3040 OF 2024
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR AND FIS IN CRIME
NO. 780/2023 OF PERINTHALMANNA POLICE
STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN C.C.
NO. 965/2023 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT I, PERINTHALMANNA
Annexure A3 AFFIDAVIT DATED 7/3/2024 SWORN BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
