Kerala High Court
Muthaleeb @ Abdul Muthaleeb C.H 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. 9389 OF 2023
CRIME NO.474/2016 OF Hosdurg Police Station, Kasargod
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.304 OF 2022 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,HOSDRUG
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4:
MUTHALEEB @ ABDUL MUTHALEEB C.H
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O ASSAINAR, RESIDING AT ATHUHAJI (H), ARANGADI,
KANHANGAD VILLAGE, KASARGOD-, PIN - 671315
BY ADVS.
A.ARUNKUMAR
S.SHYAM KUMAR
SACHIN GEORGE ARAMBAN
RAHUL S.NATH
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 THANKAMANI K.V
AGED 75 YEARS
W/O BALAN, RESIDING AT KALAYARA HOUSE, ARANGADI-
KALAYARA, KANHANGAD VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARGOD -,
PIN - 671315
SRI. VIPIN T JOSE FOR R2
SMT. SHEEBA THOMAS, 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. 9389 OF 2023 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN J.
........................................................................
Crl.M.C.No. 9389 of 2023
.........................................
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 one of the accused in C.C. No.304/2022 on
the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg,
Kasargod arising from Crime No.474/2016 of Hosdurg police
station. The above case is chargesheeted alleging commission
of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 448 and
427 r/w. 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case is that, on 19.05.2016, at about
03.05 pm, the accused along with 34 other unidentified
persons, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed
with dangerous weapons and vandalised the glass windows of
the car bearing registration No.KL-60 H-4318, parked near the
house, causing a loss of Rs.30,111/- and thereby the accused
committed the offence alleged against him.
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 C.C. No.304/2022 on the file of the
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg, Kasargod
arising from Crime No.474/2016 of Hosdurg Police Station, as
against the petitioner alone, is quashed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
ajt
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure AI A TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO. 474
OF 2016 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION
Annexure AII CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
CRIME NO. 474 OF 2016 OF HOSDURG POLICE
STATION
Annexure AIII THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Annexure AIV A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO.2070
OF 2016 DATED 27.04.2019 OF THE JFCM-I,
HOSDURG
