Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 18582
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J
MUHAMMAD ALTHAF HUSAIN – Appellant
Versus
PRANOSH K – Respondent
Crl.MC 5548 2023
C.R.JAYAKUMAR, M.K.SUMOD SMT. NEEMA T V
The court established that inherent powers under Section 482 may be utilized to quash non-compoundable offenses that are non-serious and have been amicably resolved.
Headnote:
Quashing - Criminal Proceedings - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Summary: The court emphasized the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 to quash non-compoundable offences when they have a civil character and parties have resolved disputes amicably, citing precedents regarding offenses not impacting societal interests.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, accused in a criminal case, is alleged to have wrongfully restrained and assaulted the complainant. The parties have since settled their dispute and seek to terminate the proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted the settlement between parties and found no serious implications for society from quashing the proceedings, deciding it would promote peace and justice.
Issues: Whether the inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC can be exercised to quash proceedings for a non-compoundable offense given the parties’ settlement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that it can quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 when offenses do not have a serious impact on society and the parties have amicably resolved their disputes.
Final Decision: The petition is allowed and all proceedings against the petitioner are quashed.
ORDER
This petition is filed invoking the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for the sake of brevity).
2. The petitioner herein is the accused in Crime No.1482 of
2022 of the Kannur Town Police station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 326 r/w Section 34 of the IPC.
3. The prosecution allegation, as borne out from the records, are as under:
On 11.12.2022 at 20.00 hrs, the petitioner is alleged to have wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and attacked him causing injuries.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties have settled their dispute and do not wish to pursue the prosecution proceedings. He relies on the affidavit filed by the party respondent in support of his contention. Counsel argues that if the proceedings are terminated, with the recording of the amicable settlement, the parties can move forward in an atmosphere of peace and mutual respect.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, has expressed reservations about quashing the proceedings solely on the basis of the settlement. He argues that the facts and circumstances may not warrant the exercise of the court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, it is fairly submitted that there have been no other crimes of serious nature registered against the petitioner to date. It is further submitted that the statement of the party respondent has been recorded, and he has unequivocally stated that he does not have any lasting grievances.
6. I have considered the submissions and have gone through the records.
7. In State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan ,1, a three-judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has summarized the law as laid down in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab2, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab3 and in subsequent cases. It was laid down as under:
15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under:
15.1. That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or
15.2. 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;
15.3. Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like the 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;
15.4. Offences under Section 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 Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act, etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 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 Section 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 Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing t
