Kerala High Court
Kunhammed vs The Station House Officer 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. 3629 OF 2024
CRIME NO.60/1998 OF Thalapuzha Police Station, Wayanad
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.303 OF 2003 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS , MANANTHAVADY
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:
KUNHAMMED
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O ABDULLA, VARIPPOYIL HOUSE, VALAT P.O.,
MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN 670 644
BY ADV KAVERY S THAMPI
RESPONDENT/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT :
1 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
THALAPUZHA POLICE STATION, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN 670
644
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN- 682 031
3 T SWAMI @ RAJAN
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O KRISHNANKUTTY, THACHAREAKKAVIL HOUSE, VALAD POST,
WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN 670 644
SRI. YADHU KUMAR - R3
SMT. SHEEBA THOMAS PP
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. 3629 OF 2024 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN J.
........................................................................
Crl.M.C.No. 3629 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. Petitioner is the accused in L.P. No.39/2003 arising
from C.C. No.303/2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court-I, Mananthavady. The above case is
chargesheeted against the petitioner and others, alleging
offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323 r/w. 149 of
the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case is that, the petitioner and other
accused, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and
assaulted the injured.
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 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:
"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 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 in L.P. No.39/2003, arising from C.C.
No.303/2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court-I, Mananthavady (Crime No.60/1998 of Thalapuzha
police station ), as against the petitioner alone, is quashed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
ajt
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS SHEET OF
THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT
I , MANATHAVADY IN C.C NO. 303/2003 ON 06-
02-2024 AND 16-03-2024
Annexure B AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 25-
03-2024
Annexure C CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN C.C.
NO.303/2003 ON THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT 1, MANANTHAVADY
