Kerala High Court

Sajeer vs State Of Kerala on 23 August, 2023

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
       THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
   WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 1ST BHADRA, 1945
                    CRL.MC NO. 5757 OF 2023
   CRIME NO.285/2013 OF FORT KOCHI POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
  AGAINST CC NO.1506/2017 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
                       COURT, MATTANCHERY
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 :

           SAJEER
           AGED 42 YEARS
           S/O. ISMAIL, MARAKATTUPARAMBU,CC 11/2365,
           MADURA COMPANY ROAD, PALLURUTHY,
           KOCHI, PIN - 682006

           BY ADVS.
           RAMEEZ NOOH
           FATHIMA K.

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT :

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

     2     SUMITHRA MATHEW
           AGED 43 YEARS
           W/O. MATHEW LAWRENCE, RESIDING AT CC 11/587 A,
           UTHALAMOOTTIL HOUSE, OPP. NAVAL MUSEUM,
           K.J. HARSHAL ROAD, FORT KOCHI, KOCHI - 1
     3     MATHEW LAWRENCE
           AGED 51 YEARS
           S/O. M.P. LAWRENCE, RESIDING AT CC 11/587 A,
           UTHALAMOOTTIL HOUSE, OPP. NAVAL MUSEUM,
           K.J. HARSHAL ROAD, FORT KOCHI, KOCHI- 1



  THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
 23.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRL.MC NO.5757 OF 2023

                                     2




                                  ORDER

This petition is filed invoking the powers of this Court under

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code" for the

sake of brevity).

2. The petitioner herein is the 1st accused in C.C. No.1506

of 2017 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Mattancherry. In the said case, he is the accused of having committed

offences punishable under Section 3 r/w Section 17 of the Kerala Money

Lenders Act. The 2nd accused in the aforesaid case is stated to be no

more.

3. The prosecution allegation, as borne out from the

records, are as under:

Without a valid money lending license, the petitioner is alleged

to have advanced money to the 3rd respondent, and when the same

was demanded back, the petitioner is alleged to have threatened and

intimidated respondents 2 and 3.

CRL.MC NO.5757 OF 2023

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

parties have settled their dispute and do not wish to pursue the

prosecution proceedings. He relies on the affidavits filed by the party

respondents in support of his contention. Counsel argues that if the

proceedings are terminated, with the recording of the amicable

settlement, the parties can move forward in an atmosphere of peace

and mutual respect.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, has

expressed reservations about quashing the proceedings solely on the

basis of the settlement. He argues that the facts and circumstances may

not warrant the exercise of the court's inherent jurisdiction under

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, it is fairly

submitted that there have been no other crimes of serious nature

registered against the petitioner to date. It is further submitted that the

statements of the party respondents have been recorded, and they have

unequivocally stated that they do not have any lasting grievances.

6. I have considered the submissions and have gone

through the records.

CRL.MC NO.5757 OF 2023

7. In State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan,1, a three-judge

bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized the law as laid

down in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab2, Narinder Singh v. State

of Punjab3 and in subsequent cases. It was laid down as under:

15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this

Court on the point referred to hereinabove, it is observed and

held as under:

15.1. That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;

15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;

15.3. Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act

[(2019) 5 SCC 688]

(2012) 10 SCC 303

2014 (6) SCC 466 CRL.MC NO.5757 OF 2023

or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender; 15.4. Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act, etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act, etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge-sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paras 29.6 and 29.7 of CRL.MC NO.5757 OF 2023

the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;

15.5. While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offenses, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise, etc.

8. Having carefully analyzed the prayer sought for in the light

of the principles laid down as above and also the nature of the

allegations, the gravity of the offense, the antecedents of the accused,

and the amicable relationship that now exists between the parties, I am

of the considered opinion that quashing the proceedings on the basis of

the settlement will not have any adverse impact on society. In fact, it

would only serve to bring about peace and secure the ends of justice.

Additionally, persisting with the prosecution would be a waste of time, CRL.MC NO.5757 OF 2023

as the prospects of conviction are bleak. In light of all of the relevant

circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court would be well

justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the

Code to quash the proceedings