Allowed

Shifad P U v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Mar 2025Crl.MC/466/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous case, the Kerala High Court allowed the quashment of FIR and proceedings for compoundable offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The court accepted a genuine settlement and affidavits from all victims, finding that the disputes were resolved amicably and further prosecution would amount to an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The criminal miscellaneous case Crl.M.C No. 466/2025 was allowed; Fleet No. 39 of 2025 of Kodungallur Police Station and all further proceedings are quashed.

Shifad P U Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2025)

¶1

2025:KER:23379

¶2

Crl.M.C No.466/2025

¶3

-1-

¶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
CRL.MC NO. 466 OF 2025

¶8

CRIME NO.39/2025 OF KODUNGALLUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR

¶9

PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED:

¶10

SHIFAD P U, AGED 42 YEARS
SON OF UMMAR, PAZHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, AZHIKODE
VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680702

¶11

BY ADVS.
JITHIN BABU A
ARUN SAMUEL
ANOOD JALAL K.J.

¶12

RESPONDENT/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶13

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

¶14

2 SHAINABI, AGED 42 YEARS W/O NAVAS, KANNATHU PADI, KATHIYALAM, EDAVILANGU, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680671

¶15

3 NAFNA, AGED 17 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER SHAINABI, AGED 42, W/O NAVAS, KANNATHU PADI, KATHIYALAM, EDAVILANGU, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680671

¶16

4 NAVAS, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O ABDU, KANNATHU PADI, KATHIYALAM, EDAVILANGU, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680671

¶17

SRI. SANAL P RAJ (PP)
ADV. CLETUS THOTTAPILLY

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION

¶19

ON 03.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶20

2025:KER:23379

¶21

Crl.M.C No.466/2025

¶22

-2-

¶23

C.JAYACHANDRAN, J. ======================= Crl.M.C No.466 of 2025 ========================

¶24

Dated this the 3 rd day of March, 2025

¶25

ORDER

¶26

A five Judges Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in

¶27

Kulwinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another

¶28

[(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], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has gone to the extent of sanctioning invocation of

¶29

the inherent power under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the F.I.R in a crime alleging

¶30

2025:KER:23379

¶31

Crl.M.C No.466/2025

¶32

-3-

¶33

offence under Section 307, which is a henious 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:

¶34

“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 law.”

¶35

2. In the facts at hand, petitioner is the sole accused in

¶36

Crime No.39 of 2025 of Kodungallur Police Station, Thrissur. The offences alleged are under Sections 332(c), 126(2), 115(2), 296(b), 351(2) and 74 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner seeks quashment of

¶37

2025:KER:23379

¶38

Crl.M.C No.466/2025

¶39

-4-

¶40

entire proceedings in the above Crime, on the strength of the settlement arrived at by and between the parties.

¶41

3 . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the defacto complainant/respondent no.2 and respondents 3 & 4 and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the records.

¶42

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 statements of the defacto complainant and respondents 3 & 4 (victims), were handed over. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the issues between the defacto complainant, 3 rd and 4 th respondents and the petitioner have been settled and that they are disinterested to pursue the prosecution case, as against the petitioner, any further. They would also state that they have 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 (2 nd respondent herein) as Annexure2, wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes

¶43

2025:KER:23379

¶44

Crl.M.C No.466/2025

¶45

-5-

¶46

have been settled amicably and that the complaint emanated from a mistaken impression. The defacto complainant would also swear that she has no further 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. Affidavits have been sworn to by the daughter of the defacto complainant (3 rd respondent herein) and th husband of the defacto complainant (4 respondent herein) , as Annexu re s-A3 and A4, wherein they would also vouch the factum of settlement claimed by the petitioner. This Court is therefore convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine and bonafide. Learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 would also endorse that the quashment sought for can be allowed, pursuant to the settlement arrived between the parties.

¶47

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

¶48

2025:KER:23379

¶49

Crl.M.C No.466/2025

¶50

-6-

¶51

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 332(c), 126(2), 351(2) and 115(2) are compoundable, which is all the more a reason to accept the compromise between the parties.

¶52

In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-1 F.I.R., and all further proceedings in Crime No.39 of 2025 of Kodungallur Police Station, Thrissur, are hereby quashed.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶55

vdv

¶56

2025:KER:23379

¶57

Crl.M.C No.466/2025

¶58

-7-

¶59

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 466/2025

¶60

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶61

Annexure 1A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 02/01/2025
IN CRIME NO. 39/2025 OF KODUNGALLUR
POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶62

Annexure 2THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 14/01/2025 SWORN BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT/DE-FACTO
COMPLAINANT.

¶63

Annexure 3THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 14/01/2025 SWORN BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶64

Annexure 4THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 14/01/2025 SWORN BY
THE 4TH RESPONDENT/INJURED.

Shifad P U v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shifad P U 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

Nandagopal, Vs the State of Kerala

Nishanth Vs State of Kerala

Anoop C.P. Vs Aparana A.P.

Nizar.C.a Vs State of Kerala

Shihabudeen Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Sinan T P Vs State of Kerala