Nizar.C.a Vs State of Kerala

¶1

CRL.MC NO. 1500 OF 2025

¶2

 2025:KER:19175

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN

¶7

MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 12TH PHALGUNA, 1946

¶8

CRL.MC NO. 1500 OF 2025

¶9

CRIME NO.655/2024 OF Hill Palace Police Station, Ernakulam

¶10

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2:

¶11

1NIZAR.C.A
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O ABDUL KHADER MUTHAYIL (H), VATTEKUNNAM, EDAPILLY
NORTH ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682024

¶12

2RAJESH KUMAR.J
AGED 27 YEARS
FLAT NO.A, REVATHY COURT APARTMENT DESHABIMANI ROAD,
KALOOR ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682017

¶13

BY ADV R.ROHITH

¶14

RESPONDENTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶15

1 STATE OF KERALA

¶16

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

¶17

2 MOLLY AGED 65 YEARS, W/O JOHNSON, BLOCK NO.22, STAR HOMES, EF-3, CHATHARI, NADAMA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682301

¶18

BY ADV P.M.AFSAL MOHAMED
SRI. SANAL P RAJ (PP)

¶19

CRL.MC NO. 1500 OF 2025

¶20

2 2025:KER:19175

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

CRL.MC NO. 1500 OF 2025

¶23

¶24

 2025:KER:19175

¶25

C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.

¶26

------------------------------------
 Crl.M.C.No.1500 of 2025

¶27

------------------------------------
Dated, this the 3rd day of March, 2025

¶28

ORDER

¶29

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
and another [(2012) 10 SCC 303]. Similarly in Narinder
Singh and Others v. State of Punjab [(2014) 6 SCC 466],

¶30

CRL.MC NO. 1500 OF 20254 2025:KER:19175

¶31

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:

¶32

“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
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

¶33

CRL.MC NO. 1500 OF 2025

¶34

¶35

 2025:KER:19175

¶36

law.”

¶37

2.In the facts at hand, petitioners are the
accused persons in Crime No.655/2024 of Hill Palace
Police Station, Ernakulam. As per the FIR, the offences
alleged are under Sections 351(2), 296(b) and 3(5) of

¶38

the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The petitioners
seek quashment of entire proceedings in the above crime,
on the strength of the settlement arrived at by and
between the parties.

¶39

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

¶40

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
issues between the petitioners and the defacto

¶41

CRL.MC NO. 1500 OF 2025

¶42

6 2025:KER:19175

¶43

complainant are settled and that the defacto complainant
is disinterested to proceed with the prosecution case,
any further. The defacto complainant has no objection in
quashing the criminal proceedings against the
petitioners. 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-
2, wherein she would unequivocally state that the
disputes have been settled out of the Court and that the
complaint emanated from some mistake. The defacto
complainant would also swear that she has no grievance
against the petitioners and that she has no objection in
quashing the criminal proceedings against the

¶44

petitioners. The affidavit is sworn to on her own
volition. This Court, is therefore, convinced that the
settlement arrived at is genuine and bonafide. Learned
Counsel for the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant would
also endorse that the quashment sought for can be
allowed.

¶45

CRL.MC NO. 1500 OF 20257 2025:KER:19175

¶46

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 petitioners 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 the offence under
Section 351(2) is compoundable, which is all the more a
reason to accept the compromise between the parties.

¶47

In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed.
Annexure-1 F.I.R. in Crime No.655/2024 of Hill Palace

¶48

CRL.MC NO. 1500 OF 20258

¶49

 2025:KER:19175

¶50

Police Station, Ernakulam, and all further proceedings
pursuant thereto, as against the petitioners, are hereby
quashed.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

C. JAYACHANDRAN

¶53

JUDGE

¶54

ska

¶55

CRL.MC NO. 1500 OF 20259

¶56

 2025:KER:19175

¶57

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1500/2025

¶58

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶59

Annexure 1CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO 655 OF
2024 OF HILL PALACE POLICE STATION , DATED
20/8/2024
Annexure 2AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/DE-
FACTO COMPLAINANT DATED 03.02.2025

Nizar.C.a v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nizar.C.a v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nandagopal, Vs the State of Kerala

Nishanth Vs State of Kerala

Anoop C.P. Vs Aparana A.P.

Shihabudeen Vs State of Kerala

Shifad P U Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Sinan T P Vs State of Kerala