Allowed

Hudaifa C.H, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Mar 2025Crl.MC/1305/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ernakulam allowed a Criminal Miscellaneous application to quash criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The offences were compoundable under the BNS 2023. The defacto complainant filed an affidavit stating the dispute was settled voluntarily and she had no objection to quashing.

What did the court decide?

The Crl.M.C. is allowed. The F.I.R., Final Report, and all further proceedings in C.C.No.48/2025 are quashed.

Hudaifa C.H, Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2025)

¶1

CRL.MC NO. 1305 OF 2025

¶2

1 2025:KER:22712

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1946

¶7

CRL.MC NO. 1305 OF 2025

¶8

CRIME NO.1053/2024 OF Chandera Police Station, Kasargod

¶9

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC NO.48 OF 2025 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,HOSDRUG

¶10

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶11

HUDAIFA C.H,
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O ABDUL KHADAR,RESIDING AT CHEKKINTEKATH
HOUSE,UDUMBUNTHALA, SOUTH THRIKARIPUR VILLAGE,KASARAGOD
DISTRICT,, PIN - 671311

¶12

BY ADVS.
RESHMA E.
ANJITHA SANTHOSH
ATHEENA ANTONY

¶13

RESPONDENT/:STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶14

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

¶15

2MUHSINABHI M ,
AGED 34 YEARS
MUHSINABHI M ,W/O SAHUBAR ALI.B,RESIDING AT
MADAMBILLATH HOUSE, KUTTICHI, UDUMBUMTHALA,

¶16

CRL.MC NO. 1305 OF 2025

¶17

2 2025:KER:22712

¶18

UDUMBUMTHALA P.O, SOUTH TRIKARIPUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG
TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, KERALA., PIN - 671311

¶19

BY ADV ANJU JOSEPH
SR.PP -C.N.PRABHAKARAN

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

CRL.MC NO. 1305 OF 2025

¶22

3 2025:KER:22712

¶23

C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.

¶24

------------------------------------
CRL.MC NO. 1305 OF 2025

¶25

Dated, this the 6th day of March, 2025

¶26

ORDER

¶27

A five Judges Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
in Kulwinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and
Another [(2007) 4 CTC 769], framed broad guidelines as
regards quashment of the criminal proceedings under
Section 482 of the Code in respect of offences which are
not compoundable in terms of Section 320 of the Code.
One among the guidelines was that the offences against
human body, other than murder and culpable homicide, may
be permitted to be compounded, when the court is in a
position to record a finding that the settlement between
the parties is voluntary and fair. These guidelines were
quoted with approval by a three Judges Bench of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab

¶28

CRL.MC NO. 1305 OF 2025

¶29

4 2025:KER:22712

¶30

and another [(2012) 10 SCC 303]. Similarly in Narinder
Singh and Others v. State of Punjab [(2014) 6 SCC 466],
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has gone to the extent of
sanctioning invocation of the inherent power under
Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the
F.I.R. in a crime alleging offence under Section 307,
which is a heinous and serious offence. A practical
approach is seen adopted by the Hon'ble Supreme in
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [(2008) 4 SCC 582]
as regards quashment in respect of offences like 379,
406, 409, 418, etc., the relevant findings of which are
extracted herebelow:

¶31

“6.We need to emphasise that it is perhaps
advisable that in disputes where the question involved
is of a purely personal nature, the court should
ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in
criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with
no possibility of a result in favour of the
prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly
overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the
time so saved can be utilised in deciding more

¶32

CRL.MC NO. 1305 OF 20255 2025:KER:22712

¶33

effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common
sense approach to the matter based on ground of
realities and bereft of the technicalities of the
law.”

¶34

2.In the facts at hand, petitioner is the sole
accused person in Crime No.1053 of 2024 of Chandera
Police Station, Kasargode, now pending as C.C.No.48/2025
before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I,
Hosdurg. As per the final report the offences alleged
are under Sections 126(2) and 115(2) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The petitioner seeks
quashment of entire proceedings in the above Calendar
Case, on the strength of the settlement arrived at by
and between the parties.

¶35

3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned counsel for the defacto complainant/respondent
no.2 and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused
the records.

¶36

CRL.MC NO. 1305 OF 2025

¶37

6 2025:KER:22712

¶38

4.When this Crl.M.C was moved, this Court directed
to record the statement of the defacto complainant. The
said direction was complied and the statement was handed
over. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the
defacto complainant has no objection in quashing the
criminal proceedings against the petitioner. That apart,
it is noticed that, along with this Crl.M.C, an
affidavit has been sworn to by the defacto complainant
(2nd respondent herein) as Annexure-A3, wherein she
would unequivocally state that the disputes have been
settled and that she does not want to proceed against
the petitioner, any further. The defacto complainant
would also swear that she has no grievance against the
petitioner and that she has no objection in quashing the
criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The
affidavit is sworn to on her own volition, without any
compulsion, whatsoever. This Court, is therefore,
convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine and

¶39

CRL.MC NO. 1305 OF 2025

¶40

7 2025:KER:22712

¶41

bonafide. Learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent/defacto
complainant would also endorse that the quashment sought
for can be allowed.

¶42

5.In the light of the above referred facts, this
Court is of the opinion that the necessary parameters,
as culled out in Narinder Singh (supra), Madan Mohan
Abbot (supra) and Gian Singh (Supra), are fully
satisfied. This Court is convinced that further
proceedings against the petitioner will be a futile
exercise, inasmuch as the disputes have already been
settled. There is little possibility of any conviction
in the crime. Dehors the settlement arrived at by and
between the parties, if they are compelled to face the
criminal proceedings, the same, in the estimation of
this Court, will amount to abuse of process of Court.
The quashment sought for would secure the ends of
justice. This Court also notice that offences under
Sections 126(2) and 115(2) are compoundable, which is

¶43

CRL.MC NO. 1305 OF 2025

¶44

8 2025:KER:22712

¶45

all the more a reason to accept the compromise between
the parties.

¶46

In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed.
Annexure-A1 F.I.R., Annexure-A2 Final Report in Crime
No.1053 of 2024 and all further proceedings in
C.C.No.48/2025 before the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg, are hereby quashed.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

C. JAYACHANDRAN

¶49

JUDGE

¶50

ska

¶51

CRL.MC NO. 1305 OF 2025

¶52

9 2025:KER:22712

¶53

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1305/2025

¶54

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶55

Annexure A1THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR AND FIS DATED
18.12.2024 IN CRIME NO.1053 OF 2024 AT
CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARGOD DISTRICT
Annexure A2A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED
31.12.2024 IN C.C NO 48 OF 2025 ALONG WITH
MEMO OF EVIDENCE, STATEMENT OF ALL AVAILABLE
WITNESS IN THE CRIME NO.1053 OF 2024 OF
CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARGOD DISTRICT
Annexure A3A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 14.01.2025
SIGNED BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/2ND
RESPONDENT BEFORE AN ADVOCATE

Hudaifa C.H, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hudaifa C.H, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.Faizal Vs State of Kerala

Jijo K U Vs State of Kerala

Nizar.C.a Vs State of Kerala

Sibi.v.T Vs State of Kerala

Ajmal Sha O.S Vs State of Kerala

Shanif M K Vs State of Kerala