Kerala High Court

Sunil vs State Of Kerala on 25 August, 2023

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                         PRESENT
     THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
  FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 3RD BHADRA, 1945

                  CRL.MC NO. 5071 OF 2020
    AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT LP 134/2018 OF JUDICIAL
          MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS , KAYAMKULAM

PETITIONER/S:

    1     SUNIL
          AGED 47 YEARS
          S/O GOPALAN,
          THARAYIL VEEDU, NJAKKANAL MURI,
          KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE,
          KAYAMKULAM.

    2     SURAJ,
          AGED 33 YEARS
          S/O.SURENDRAN,
          RESIDING AT POOMANGALAM VEEDU,KAPPIL
          KIZHAKKEMURI,KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE,
          ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

          BY ADV RASHEED C.NOORANAD

RESPONDENT/S:

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

    2     SIVAPRASAD
          S/O.SHIVADASAN ACHARY,
          ASHARIPURAYIDAM,KAPPIL MEKKU MURI,
          KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM,ALAPPUZHA.

          BY ADV P.MOHAMMED ANZARI

          SRI. VIPIN NARAYAN, SR. PP


     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 25.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
 CRL.MC NO. 5071 OF 2020

                                   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 petitioners herein are accused in L.P. No. 134 of 2018

on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kayamkulam

registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 324,

323 r/w Section 34 of the IPC.

3. The prosecution allegation, as borne out from the records,

are:

On 22.01.2012 at about 10.45 a.m., the accused persons, owing

to the enmity towards the defacto complainant wrongfully restrained,

manhandled him, and attacked him with an iron rod and knife causing

injuries.

4. The aforesaid case has arisen from Crime No.147/2013 of

the Kayamkulam Police station. In the final report that was laid before

the court, three persons were arrayed as the accused and the

petitioners herein are accused Nos. 1 and 3. The petitioners failed to

appear before the Court of Sessions and the case was proceeded CRL.MC NO. 5071 OF 2020

against accused No. 2. He is stated to have been acquitted. The case

against the petitioners were split up and refiled, and the same is now

pending as L.P. No. 134/2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the

First Class-I, Kayamkulam.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

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

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

respondent in support of their contentions. 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.

6. 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 petitioners to date. It is further submitted that the

statement of the party respondent has been recorded, and he has

stated that he does not have any lasting grievances. CRL.MC NO. 5071 OF 2020

7. I have considered the submissions and have gone through

the records.

8. 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

(2019) 5 SCC 688

(2012) 10 SCC 303

2014 (6) SCC 466 CRL.MC NO. 5071 OF 2020

Corruption Act 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 the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh [Narinder CRL.MC NO. 5071 OF 2020

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.

9. Having carefully analyzed the prayer sought in the light of

the principles laid down above and also the nature of the allegations,

the gravity of the offence, the severity of injuries inflicted, 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, as the prospects of conviction are bleak. In

light of all of the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view CRL.MC NO. 5071 OF 2020

that this Court would be well justified in invoking its extraordinary

powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings.