Kerala High Court
Arshad 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. 2379 OF 2024
CRIME NO.769/2019 OF Koyilandy Police Station, Kozhikode
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.1106 OF 2019 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,KOYILANDY
PETITIONER :-
ARSHAD, AGED 31 YEARS
S/O HAMZA, MOKEDATH THAZHA HOUSE, KADALUR P.O, NANDI,
QUILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN - 673529
BY ADVS.
ADITHYA RAJEEV
S.PARVATHI
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DE FACTO COMPLAINANT :-
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 FATHIMA M., AGED 24 YEARS
D/O SAINUL ABID, MAADATHIL HOUSE, KADALUR P.O, NANDI,
QUILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN - 673529
BY ADV GIRISH KUMAR M S
SRI. GIREESH KUMAR MS FOR R2,
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. 2379 OF 2024
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 2379 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 accused in C.C.No.1106 of 2019
on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -I,
Koyilandy arising from Crime No.769 of 2019 of Quilandy
Police Station. The above case is charge sheeted against the
petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 354(D)
(2) and 500 of IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that on 05.09.2019 when the
2nd respondent was pursuing her education from MES
College, Kozhikode, petitioner had repeatedly proposed to the
2nd respondent for marriage, despite her objection and had
CRL.MC NO. 2379 OF 2024
caused nuisance to the 2nd respondent. Hence, it is alleged
that the accused 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 by the victim in support of her 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/s and the Public Prosecutor and has also
gone through the records including the affidavit filed by the
victim.
CRL.MC NO. 2379 OF 2024
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
CRL.MC NO. 2379 OF 2024
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
CRL.MC NO. 2379 OF 2024
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
CRL.MC NO. 2379 OF 2024
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.1106
of 2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court -I, Koyilandy arising from Crime No.769 of 2019 of
Quilandy Police Station are quashed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
SMA
CRL.MC NO. 2379 OF 2024
PETITIONER ANNEXURES :-
Annexure-I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION
OF 2019 OF THE QUILDANDY POLICE STATION,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT
Annexure-II CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED
23-11-2019 IN CRIME NO. 769 OF 2019 OF
THE QUILDANDY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT
Annexure-III AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 06-02-2024
