Fairoose Khan @ Khuraishi vs State Of Kerala
2024 Latest Caselaw 11478 Ker

Kerala High Court

Fairoose Khan @ Khuraishi 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. 2238 OF 2024
 CRIME NO.175/2021 OF EDAVANNA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM
 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.284 OF 2021 OF
             CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MANJERI


PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

    1     FAIROOSE KHAN @ KHURAISHI
          AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. SAFARULLA, VARIKKOTTIL
          HOUSE, PAADIKKUNNU, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM
          DISTRICT., PIN - 679 329
    2     SAFARULLA
          AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. USMAN, VARIKKOTTIL HOUSE,
          PAADIKKUNNU, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.,
          PIN - 679 329
    3     MUHAMMED FARIS
          AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. SAFARULLA, VARIKKOTTIL
          HOUSE, PAADIKKUNNU, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM
          DISTRICT., PIN - 679 329
    4     NISAR MON
          AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. AHAMMED KUTTY, PALLITHODIKA
          HOUSE, TAANA, MAMBAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.,
          PIN - 676 542
    5     RAMSAN
          AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. AHAMMED KUTTY, PALLITHODIKA
          HOUSE, TAANA, MAMBAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.,
          PIN - 676 542
    6     RIYAS MON
          AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. AHAMMED KUTTY, PALLITHODIKA
          HOUSE, TAANA, MAMBAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.,
          PIN - 676 542
          BY ADV P.SAMSUDIN
 CRL. M.C. NO.2238 OF 2024


                                  2




RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT:

    1      STATE OF KERALA
           REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
           HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031
    2      FATHIMA
           AGED 51 YEARS, W/O. ABDURAHIMAN,
           PATHAYAKKODAN HOUSE, PATHAPPIRRIYAM P.O.,
           POTHUVETTI, EDAVANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.,
           PIN - 676 123
    3      MOHAMMED ASHIQUE
           AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. ABDURAHIMAN,
           PATHAYAKKODAN HOUSE, PATHAPPIRRIYAM P.O.,
           POTHUVETTI, EDAVANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.,
           PIN - 676 123


BY ADVS.

           SMT. S. SEETHA, SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
           SRI. A.M.BABU



        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.2238 OF 2024


                              3


             P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
             --------------------------------
            Crl.M.C. No.2238 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 petitioners are the accused in C.C.

No.284/2021 of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,

Manjeri arising from Crime No.175/2021 of Edavanna

Police Station, Malappuram District. The above case

is charge sheeted against the petitioners alleging

offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148,

451, 323, 324 r/w 149 of IPC.

3. The prosecution case is that the accused

persons formed themselves into an unlawful CRL. M.C. NO.2238 OF 2024

assembly and assaulted the victims.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners

submitted 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 victims in support of his contention. The

counsel appearing for the victims also submitted that

the matter is settled and the victims have 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, victims and the Public Prosecutor and

has also gone through the records including the

affidavit filed by the victims.

CRL. M.C. NO.2238 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 CRL. M.C. NO.2238 OF 2024

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 CRL. M.C. NO.2238 OF 2024

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 CRL. M.C. NO.2238 OF 2024

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 against the

petitioners in C.C. No.284/2021 on the file of Chief

Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri arising from Crime

No.175/2021 of Edavanna Police Station, Malappuram

District are quashed.

Sd/-

nvj                                P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
                                         JUDGE
 CRL. M.C. NO.2238 OF 2024









PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE -A1        CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR DATED

26-06-2021 IN CRIME NO. 175/2021 OF EDAVANNA POLICE STATION ANNEXURE -A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 23-08-2021 IN CRIME NO.

175/2021 OF EDAVANNA POLICE STATION ANNEXURE -A3 THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 22-02-2024 SWORN IN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ANNEXURE -A4 THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 22-02-2024 SWORN IN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS :NIL

//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE