Kerala High Court
Abdul Muthaleeb 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. 9391 OF 2023
CRIME NO.480/2016 OF Hosdurg Police Station, Kasargod
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.306 OF 2022 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,HOSDRUG
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4:
ABDUL MUTHALEEB
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O ASSAINAR, 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 CHITHRA
AGED 48 YEARS
W/O SASEENDRAN (LATE), RESIDING AT VANIYAM VALAPPU,
ARANGADI-KALAYARA, KANHANGAD VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK,
KASARAGOD -, PIN - 671315
SMT. SHEEBA THOMAS PP.
SRI VIPIN T JOSE
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. 9391 OF 2023 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN J.
........................................................................
Crl.M.C.No.9391 OF 2023
.........................................
Dated this the 23rd day of April, 2024
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 C.C. No.306/2022 on the
file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg.
The above case is chargesheeted against the petitioner and
others, alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147,
148, 448, 427 r/w. 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case is that, on 19.05.2016, at about
04.45 pm, the accused along with 50 other unidentified
persons, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed
with dangerous weapons and vandalised the glass window of
the house situated near Kalayara temple where the de facto
complainant was residing, causing a loss of Rs.1,544/-. Hence
it is alleged that the petitioners committed the offences.
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.306/2022 on the file of the
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -I, Hosdurg, arising from
Crime No.480/2016 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. 480
OF 2016 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION
Annexure AII CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
CRIME NO. 480 OF 2016 OF HOSDURG POLICE
STATION
Annexure AIII THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Annexure AIV A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.05.2021
IN CRL.MC.NO. 2405 OF 2021 OF THIS
HONOURABLE COURT
