Kerala High Court
Abduraham 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. 1360 OF 2024
CRIME NO.707/2023 OF KOYILANDY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.1120 OF 2023 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,KOZHIKODE
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
1 ABDURAHAM
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O KADAR, MULLAPALLI HOUSE, NEAR PURAKKADU
STADIUM,PURAKKADU POST KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673522
2 FAHIS .K
AGED 31 YEARS
S/O ABDURAHAM, MULLAPALLI HOUSE, NEAR PURAKKADU
STADIUM,PURAKKADU POST KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673522
3 SHAHIDA
AGED 53 YEARS
W/O ABDURAHAM, MULLAPALLI HOUSE, NEAR PURAKKADU
STADIUM,PURAKKADU POST KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673522
4 FARSANA
AGED 29 YEARS
D/O ABDURAHAM, MULLAPALLI HOUSE, NEAR PURAKKADU
STADIUM, PURAKKADU POST KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673522
BY ADVS.
SRINATH GIRISH
P.JERIL BABU
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 RAIHANA
AGED 25 YEARS
D/O UMMER, RESIDING AT PUTHIYAPURAYIL, MUCHUKUNNU
Crl.M.C. No.1360 of 2024
2
PULIYANCHERRY, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673307
BY ADV.
SRI.P. RIJI FOR R2,
SMT. S. SEETHA, 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.M.C. No.1360 of 2024
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.1360 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. This Crl.M.C is filed to quash all further
proceedings in C.C.No.1120/2023 on the file of the
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Koyilandy. The
above case is charge sheeted against the petitioners
alleging offences punishable under Section 498-A, 406
r/w 34 IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused
mentally and physically harassed the defacto
complainant. Hence it is alleged that the accused
committed the afore said offences.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners 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
petitioners, 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.1120/2023 on
the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,
Koyilandy as against the petitioners are quashed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
DM
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR CRIME
NO707/2023 DATED 11-07-2023 ALONG
WITH FIS
ANNEXURE A2 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT
IN CRIME NO707/2023 DATED 30-07-2023
ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT DATED 20-12-2023
ANNEXURE A4 THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 06-01-2024
SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
