Sadikk Vs State of Kerala

Crl.M.C.No.911 of 2025

-: 1 :-

 2025:KER:21939

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN

¶7

MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1946

¶8

CRL.MC NO. 911 OF 2025

¶9

CRIME NO.408/2011 OF VALANCHERY POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM
AGAINST CC NO.816 OF 2015 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS, TIRUR

¶10

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.2 & 3:

¶11

1 SADIKK

¶12

AGED 44 YEARS

¶13

S/O. UMMER, PUNDAPARAMBU HOUSE, KOLOLAMBA P. O.,
PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679576

¶14

2 SIDDIQUE

¶15

AGED 45 YEARS
S/O. MUHAMMED, NALAKATH VALAPPIL HOUSE,
KOLOLAMBA P. O., PONNANI TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679576

¶16

BY ADV. BINU V V VEETTIL VALAPPIL

¶17

RESPONDENTS/STATE, DE FACTO COMPLAINANT & INJURED:

¶18

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

¶19

Crl.M.C.No.911 of 2025

¶20

-: 2 :-

¶21

 2025:KER:21939

¶22

2SHIHABUDHEEN
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O. SAITHALAVI, THALIKKUNNAN HOUSE,
KARIPPOL P. O., TIRUR TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676552

¶23

3ARIFA
AGED 39 YEARS
W/O. SHIHABUDHEEN, THALIKKUNNAN HOUSE,
KARIPPOL P. O., TIRUR TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 676552

¶24

BY ADVS.
MANEKSHA D.
C.N. PRABHAKARAN, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶25

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 10.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶26

Crl.M.C.No.911 of 2025

¶27

-: 3 :-

¶28

 2025:KER:21939

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

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

¶31

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], 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,

¶32

Crl.M.C.No.911 of 2025

¶33

-: 4 :-

¶34

 2025:KER:21939

¶35

which is a henious and serious offence. A practical approach is seen adopted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 here below:

¶36

“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.”

¶37

2. In the facts at hand, petitioners are accused nos.2 and 3 in Crime No.408 of 2011 of Valanchery Police Station, Malappuram, now pending as C.C.No.816/2015 before the

¶38

Crl.M.C.No.911 of 2025

¶39

-: 5 :-

¶40

Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Tirur. As per the Final Report, the offences alleged are under Sections 341, 323, 427 and 452, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners seek quashment of entire proceedings in the above Calendar Case, on the strength of the settlement arrived at by and between the parties.

¶41

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners; learned counsel for the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the records.

¶42

4. The statements of the defacto complainant and the

¶43

3^rd respondent/injured were recorded by the Investigating Officer, a perusal of which would make it clear that the issues have been settled and that they are disinterested to pursue the prosecution case, any further. The instant Crl.M.C was filed with their consent, wherefore, they have

¶44

no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. That apart, it is noticed that, along with

¶45

Crl.M.C.No.911 of 2025

¶46

-: 6 :-

¶47

this Crl.M.C, affidavits have been sworn to by the defacto complainant and 3^rd respondent/injured as Annexures-3 and 4, wherein they would unequivocally state that the disputes have been settled amicably and that they have no grievance against the petitioners. They also would also swear that they have no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners and that the affidavits are sworn to on their own volition. Moreover, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 would submit that the quashment sought for can be allowed in view of the settlement arrived at. This Court is therefore convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine and bonafide.

¶48

5. In the light of the above referred facts, this Court is

¶49

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

¶50

Crl.M.C.No.911 of 2025

¶51

-: 7 :-

¶52

 2025:KER:21939

¶53

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 341, 323 and 427 are compoundable, which is all the more a reason to accept the compromise between the parties.

¶54

6. In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed.

¶55

Annexure-1 F.I.R, Annexure-2 Final Report, and all further proceedings in C.C.No.816/2015 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Tirur, as against the petitioners, are hereby quashed.

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶58

ww

¶59

Crl.M.C.No.911 of 2025

¶60

-: 8 :-

¶61

 2025:KER:21939

¶62

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 911/2025

¶63

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶64

ANNEXURE 1CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR REGISTERED IN
CRIME NO.408/2011 OF VALANCHERY POLICE .

¶65

ANNEXURE 2CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME
NO. 408/2011 OF VALANCHERY POLICE.

¶66

ANNEXURE 3AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 25/05/2024.

¶67

ANNEXURE 4AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
DATED 25/05/2024.

Sadikk v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadikk 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

Vikraman Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Aneesh Vs State of Kerala

Eldho Alias Vs State of Kerala

Harkish Sreethu Vs State of Kerala

Anees.K.P. Vs State of Kerala

Rajeev.S. Vs State of Kerala