P.G.Antony @Sali vs State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 13405 Ker

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 13405 Ker
Judgement Date : 21 December, 2023

Kerala High Court

P.G.Antony @Sali vs State Of Kerala on 21 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 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA,
                                 1945
                   CRL.MC NO. 10416 OF 2023
CRIME NO.2169/2023 OF Palluruthy Police Station, Ernakulam
      AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CP 31/2023 OF JUDICIAL
             MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, KOCHI
PETITIONER/S:

           P.G.ANTONY @SALI, AGED 49 YEARS
           PALLIPARAMBIL HOUSE KANNAMALY P.O.,
           KOCHI TALULK ERANAKULAM, PIN - 682008
           BY ADVS.
           RATHEESH P.R.
           K.C.BINEESH


RESPONDENT/S:

     1     STATE OF KERALA
           REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
           HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
     2     MJ. XAVIER, AGED 66 YEARS
           S/O. CHACKO JOSEPH, MUTHALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE
           KANNAMALLY, KUMBALANGI EMAKULAM CITY, KERALA, PIN
           - 682007
OTHER PRESENT:

           SRI HRITHWIK CS, PP


      THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   21.12.2023,   THE   COURT    ON    THE   SAME   DAY   PASSED   THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                     -2-
Crl.M.C No. 10416 of 2023



                             P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
                            ======================================================

                              Crl.M.C No. 10416 of 2023
                        =============================================================

                   Dated this the 21st 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. Petitioner is an accused in CP No.31 of 2023 on the file of the

Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kochi, arising from Crime

No.2169 of 2023 of Palluruthy Police Station, Ernakulam. The above

case is charge sheeted alleging offences punishable under Sections

341, 324, 294(b) and 308 IPC.

3. The prosecution case is that the accused wrongfully restrained

the victim and assaulted the victim using filthy language.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner 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 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 petitioner,

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. 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 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 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 case is allowed. All

further proceedings against the petitioner in CP No.31 of 2023 on the

file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kochi, arising from

Crime No.2169 of 2023 of Palluruthy Police Station, Ernakulam are

quashed.

sd/-