Kerala High Court
Sudheesh R vs State Of Kerala on 26 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 8251 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 1109/2022 OF JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I,HOSDRUG
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
1 SUDHEESH R
AGED 31 YEARS
S/O RAGHU K, KIZHAKKE HOUSE, MARKKAPP
KADAPPURAM,KANHANGAD,KASARGOD, PIN - 671315
2 RAHUL R @ APPOTTY
AGED 25 YEARS
, S/O RAGHU K, KIZHAKKE HOUSE, MARKKAPP
KADAPPURAM,KANHANGAD,KASARGOD, PIN - 671315
BY ADVS.
RAVEENA K.R.
JUBAIRIYA SALIM
RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 SURESHAN
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O KUNCHIKRISHNAN, MARAKKAPPBKADAPPURAM,
KANHANGAD VILLAGE, KASARGOD, PIN - 671315
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI HRITHWIK, PP
SRI.SUBHASH.P.K, FOR R2
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 26.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC No.8251 of 2023
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
---------------------
CRL.MC No.8251 of 2023
---------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of October, 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. The petitioners are the accused in
C.C.No.1109/2022 on the files of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg, Kasaragod arising from Crime
No.465/2022 of Hosdurg Police Station. The above case is
charge sheeted against the petitioners alleging offences
punishable under Sections 451, 341, 294(b), 323, 324 r/w
Section 34 IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused
wrongfully confined the victim and assaulted the victim and
used filthy language.
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
CRL.MC No.8251 of 2023
on the affidavit filed by the victims in support of his
contention. The counsel appearing for the victims also
submitted that the matter is settled and the victims have
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, victims and the Public Prosecutor and has also
gone through the records including the affidavit filed by the
victims.
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 No.8251 of 2023
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
CRL.MC No.8251 of 2023
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
CRL.MC No.8251 of 2023
and the settlement can be accepted.
Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous case is allowed.
All further proceedings against the petitioners in
C.C.No.1109/2022 on the files of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg, Kasaragod arising from Crime
No.465/2022 of Hosdurg Police Station are quashed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
bng
CRL.MC No.8251 of 2023
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 8251/2023
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT
AND MEMO OF EVIDENCE IN CRIME NO.465 OF
2022 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION
Annexure A 2 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED
18.08.2023 SWORN TO BY THE RESPONDENT
NO. 2 ENDORSING THE FACTUM OF
COMPOUNDING OF THE ABOVE SAID OFFENCES
AND THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES BETWEEN
THE PARTIES
