Kerala High Court
G.S.Prakash vs State Of Kerala on 14 December, 2023
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 8285 OF 2016
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 504/2015 OF SPECIAL COURT OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR TRIAL OF CASES U/S.138 NI
ACT(JMFC XI), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
K VIJAYAKUMAR @ KALADI VIJAYAKUMAR
AGED 53 YEARS
53 YEARS OF AGE, S/O KRISHNANKUTTY,
SREEHARI NIVAS, P.S.NAGAR -83,
MUTTATHARA, VALLAKADAVU PO,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SHIRAZ ABDULLA
SRI.JOJO PAPPACHAN
RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
2 R. RADHAKRISHNAN
51 YEARS OF AGE,
THOPPIL HOUSE,T.C.34/10742-1,
VALLAKADAVU DESOM,
SREE CHITHIRA NAGAR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.S.IMTHIYAZ AHAMMED
R.HARIKRISHNAN (H-308)
G.SUDHEER(K/000467/1992)
SRI HRITHWIK CS, PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.12.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.7471/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC Nos.8285 & 7471 OF 2016
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 7471 OF 2017
CRIME NO.100/2011 OF Vanchiyoor Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 504/2015 OF SPECIAL COURT OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR TRIAL OF CASES U/S.138 NI
ACT(JMFC XI), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.2:
G.S.PRAKASH
AGED 49 YEARS
AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.P GOPINATHAN NAIR, SABARIGIRI,
TC.27/926,VANCHIYOOR P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.RAJEEV
SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN
SRI.D.FEROZE
SRI.V.VINAY
RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKUALM, 682031,
(CRIME NO 100/2011 OF VANCHIYOOR POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM)
2 R.RADHAKRISHNAN
AGED 51 YEARS,S/O.RAMANPILLAI, THOPPIL HOUSE,
TC 34/10742-1, VALLAKKADAVU DESOM,SREE CHITHIRA NAGAR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695004.
BY ADVS.
R.HARIKRISHNAN (H-308)
G.SUDHEER(K/000467/1992)
SRI HRITHWIK CS, PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.12.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.8285/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC Nos.8285 & 7471 OF 2016
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
Crl.M.C. Nos. 8285 & 7471 of 2023
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of December, 2023
ORDER
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code" for
the sake of brevity).
2. Petitioners in these Criminal Miscellaneous Cases
are accused in C. C. No. 504/2015 on the file of Judicial First
Class Magistrate Court- XI, Thiruvananthapuram.
3. The above case is charge sheeted against the
petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 468,
471 and 428 r/w 34 IPC. The prosecution case is that the
accused committed cheating and also committed forgery.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the parties have settled their dispute and do not wish to
pursue the prosecution proceedings. The counsel relies on the
affidavit filed by the victim in support of his contention. The
CRL.MC Nos.8285 & 7471 OF 2016
counsel appearing for the victim also submitted that the
matter is settled and the victim has no objection in quashing
the prosecution.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, has
expressed reservations about quashing the proceedings solely
on the basis of the settlement. But the Public Prosecutor
conceded that the matter is settled between the parties.
6. This Court has considered the submission of the
petitioners, victim and the Public Prosecutor and has also
gone through the records including the affidavit filed by the
victim.
7. In State of Madhya Pradesh v Laxmi Narayan
and Others (2019 (5) SCC 688), three judge bench of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized the situation in
which non compoundable offences can be quashed invoking
the powers under Section 482 of the Code. The apex court in
Laxmi Narayan's case (supra) also relied on the law laid
down in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another
(2012 (10) SCC 303) and Narinder Singh and others v.
CRL.MC Nos.8285 & 7471 OF 2016
State of Punjab and another (2014 (6) SCC 466). The
apex court in paragraph 13 of the Laxmi Narayan's case
discussed the law in detail and the same is extracted
hereunder:
"13. Considering the law on the point and the other
decisions of this Court on the point, referred to
herein above, it is observed and held as under:
i) that the power conferred under S.482 of the Code
to quash the criminal proceedings for the non -
compoundable offences under S.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;
ii) 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;
iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for
the offences under the special statutes like
Prevention of 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;
iv) offences under S.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 S.307 IPC and / or the Arms Act
etc. which have a serious impact on the society
cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under
CRL.MC Nos.8285 & 7471 OF 2016
S.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
S.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 S.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 S.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 / delegate 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
paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this
Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should
be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and
in the circumstances stated herein above;
v) while exercising the power under S.482 of the
Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of
non- compoundable offences, which are private in
nature and do not have a serious impart 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. Keeping in mind the above dictum laid down by the
CRL.MC Nos.8285 & 7471 OF 2016
apex court, this court perused the facts in this case and also
perused the documents produced by the parties. After going
through the entire facts and circumstances I am of the
considered opinion that the dispute is private in nature and
the settlement can be accepted.
Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous cases are
allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in C.
C. No. 504/2015, pending before the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court- XI, Thiruvananthapuram, are quashed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
sms
CRL.MC Nos.8285 & 7471 OF 2016
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC
NO.504/2015 PENDING ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-XI,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
Annexure R2(a) NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT DATED
09.08.2023 AGREEING TO QUASH THE
PROCEEDINGS.
CRL.MC Nos.8285 & 7471 OF 2016
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A COPY OF CMP NO.397/10 FILED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE VIGILANCE COURT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
ANNEXURE B COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.3.2010 VIGILANCE
COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
ANNEXURE C COPY OF THE VERIFICATION REPORT BY
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE-VIGILANCE AND ANTI-
CORRPUTION BUREAU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
ANNEXURE C(1) COPY OF THE VERIFICATION REPORT BY THE
DIRECTOR OF VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRPUTION
BUREAU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
ANNEXURE D COPY OF THE FIR.
ANNEXURE E COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF K
VIJAYAKUMAR.
ANNEXURE F COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT, CHARGE AND
RELEVANT PAGE OF THE CASE DIARY IN 504/15
BEFORE THE JFCM COURT-XI THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
ANNEXURE G COPY OF THE APPLICATION FORM FOR MEMBERSHIP
OF K.VIJAYAKUMAR.
ANNEXURE G(1) COPY OF THE ADMISSION REGISTER OF THE K.
VIJAYAKUMAR.
ANNEXURE H COPY OF THE ADMISSION REGISTER OF
PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE H(1) COPY OF THE ADMISSION REGISTER OF
PETITIONER.
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
Annexure R2(a) AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/DE-
FACTO COMPLAINANT BEFORE THE NOTARY PUBLIC
DATED 09.08.2023
