Rajendran Nair vs State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 11388 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                          PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
  WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 17TH KARTHIKA,
                              1945
                  CRL.MC NO. 8260 OF 2023
   CRIME NO.92/2010 OF Kunnicode Police Station, Kollam
 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC 512/2010 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS
                       COURT, KOLLAM
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3:

    1    RAJENDRAN NAIR, AGED 71 YEARS, S/O NARAYANAN
         NAIR, RAJENDRA VILASOM, KARIYARA MURI, VILAKKUDI
         VILLAGE, PUNALUR THALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691332
    2    SANTHOSH, S/O VIKRAMAN PILLAI THOTTATHIL PUTHEN
         VEEDU BHARANIKAV MURI PUNALUR VILLAGE KOLLAM
         DISTRICT, PIN - 691331
    3    AJITH R.NAIR, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O RAJENDRAN NAIR,
         SURENDRA VILASAM, KARIYARA MURI, VILAKKUDI
         VILLAGE, PUNALUR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691332
         BY ADVS.
         R.SURAJ KUMAR
         SUNIL J.CHAKKALACKAL
         SAJITH C.GEORGE
         ANJANA R.S.
         SNEHA RAVEENDRAN
         FARZA N.
         ASHNA S.
RESPONDENTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

    1    STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC
         PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
    2    MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI, AGED 59 YEARS
         S/O RAGHAVAN PILLAI, CHEMPAKASSERIL, KARIYARA
         MURI, VILAKKUDI VILLAGE, PUNNALUR TALUK, KOLLAM
         DISTRICT, PIN - 691332
 Crl.M.C.8260/2023                      2



OTHER PRESENT:

             SRI MP PRASANTH , PP
             BY ADV Suraj Kumar R


       THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   08.11.2023,    THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   PASSED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 Crl.M.C.8260/2023                     3




                  P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
               -------------------------------------------
                   Crl.M.C.No.8260 of 2023
               -------------------------------------------
           Dated this the 8th day of November, 2023

                               ORDER

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed to quash the

proceedings against the petitioners arising from Crime No.92/2010

of Kunnikodu Police Station.

2. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the

Assistant Sessions Court, Punalur in S.C.No.512/2010 arising from

the above crime and the petitioners filed an appeal against the

conviction and sentence before the Sessions Court, Kollam and the

appeal is pending before the Sessions Court, Kollam as Crl.Appeal

No.115/2020. Now, the dispute between the petitioners and the

defacto complainant are settled. The petitioners counsel submits

that the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioners may be

quashed in the light of the judgment of this Court in Biju Eappen v.

State of Kerala and Another [2010(1) KHC 916].

3. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public

Prosecutor.

4. In Biju Eappen's case (supra), the trial court convicted

the accused and during the pendency of the appeal, parties entered

into a compromise settling all disputes between them. Whether the

proceedings can be quashed exercising the power under section 482

Cr.P.C in such situation was considered by this Court. This Court

allowed that prayer and set aside the conviction and sentence. In the

light of the above dictum and also in the light of the dictum laid

down by the Supreme Court in Ramgopal and Another v. State

of Madhya Pradesh and Another [2021 KHC 6543], I think

the proceedings can be quashed in the light of the settlement.

5. 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 counsel appearing for the

victim also submitted that the matter is settled and the victim has no

objection in quashing the prosecution.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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."

9. 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. The

conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioners based on

Annexure-A2 judgment is set aside and Crl.Appeal No.115/2020 on

the file of Sessions Court, Kollam as well as the entire proceedings in

S.C.No.512/2010 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Punalur

arising from Crime No.92/2010 of Kunnikode Police Station as

against the petitioners are quashed.

Sd/-

P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE Sbna/

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 8260/2023

PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 04.03.2023 IN SESSION CASE NO.

512/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, PUNALUR Annexure A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN SC NO. 512/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT PUNALUR DATED 17/11/2020 Annexure A3 THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 25.08.2023