Insufficient evidence for attempt to murder leads to quashing of proceedings despite the seriousness of the charge.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN THURSDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1947 CRL.MC NO.10680 OF 2024 CRIME NO.674/2024 OF Kasaba Police Station, Kozhikode AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CP NO.71 OF 2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III,KOZHIKODE PETITIONER:

GULAM AHAMMAD RAJA, AGED 22 YEARS S/O ABDUL WAHID,MAKADIHA, GIRIDIH, KUBARI POST, JHARKHAND, PIN - 825418 BY ADV SMT.K.REEHA KHADER RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031

2 GHALEEL RAHMAN, AGED 18 YEARS S/O AJAHAR, BISHAPUR,DANGARA POST, KARIYALI, HARICHANDRAPUR, SECOND MALDAV, MAIDA,WEST BENGAL, PIN - 345001 BY ADV SRI.P.K.SUBHASH OTHER PRESENT:

SMT. PUSHPALATHA. M.K, SR.PP.

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

05.06.2025, THE COURT ON 11.02.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

V.G.ARUN, J = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Crl.M.C.No.10680 of 2024 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 5th day of June, 2025

ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.674 of 2024 registered at the Kasaba Police Station, Kozhikode for the offence under Section 109 (1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 (' BNS ' for short) [corresponding to Section 307 of IPC], now pending as S.C.No.249 of 2025 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court (POCSO), Kozhikode. The crime was registered on the allegation that, at about 01:30 am on 27.08.2024, pursuant to an altercation about the storage of the de facto complainant's clothes in the room shared by him and the petitioner at the Sarovar Hotel where both of them were working, the petitioner forcefully pushed the glass door of the room towards the de facto complainant, resulting in the glass pane shattering and the broken pieces of glass piercing the de facto complainant's chest. This Crl.M.C is filed seeking to quash the crime and further proceedings against the petitioner on the premise that the dispute between the parties was settled amicably and the de facto complainant has no subsisting grievance.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no premeditated attack from the petitioner's part and he had no knowledge that the glass door will break and the broken pieces will cause injuries to the de facto complainant. Even according to the prosecution, the 2^nd respondent had suffered injuries when the broken glass pieces pierced his chest. The petitioner's act of pushing the glass door forcefully cannot be considered as an attempt to commit murder. It is contended that the parties having amicably settled all issues, this Court can quash the proceedings, since the materials collected by the prosecution do not make out the offence of attempt to murder. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the decision in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others [ 2019 (5) SCC 688 ].

3. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, since the offence under Section 109 (1) of BNS falls in the category of heinous and serious offences and are treated as crimes against the society, this Court will not be justified in quashing the proceedings based on settlement.

4. While the offence of attempt to murder is a serious offence, the question here is whether mere registration of a crime alleging such an offence should stand in the way of this Court exercising its inherent power, when the prosecution materials are insufficient to attract the offence. Here, the allegation is that, upon the de facto complainant trying to enter the room where the petitioner was standing, there occurred an altercation and the petitioner pushed the glass door towards the de facto complainant, resulting in the glass pane shattering and glass pieces piercing the de facto c