Kerala High Court
Jithin T 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. 7566 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 419/2022 OF JMFC, KALAMASSERY
(TEMPORARY)
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4:
1 JITHIN T
AGED 22 YEARS
S/O CHANDRAN, THAIKKANDY HOUSE, KOOVODE, KUTTIKKAL P.O,
THALIPARAMB, KANNUR, PIN - 670562
2 ASWANTH ASOK
AGED 23 YEARS
S/O ASOKAN, THAZHEKUNIYIL HOUSE, MADAPPILLY COLLEGE
P.O, ONCHIYAM, PIN - 673102
3 HARISH MAHAROOF
AGED 22 YEARS
S/O HASSAINAR, KUMBAKKODE HOUSE, PADAPPU, KASARGOD,
PIN - 671541
4 VYSHAK
AGED 22 YEARS
S/O PRADEEP, NECHIKKATTU HOUSE, VETTALOOR P.O,
MAKARAMPARAMBA, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676507
BY ADVS.
VIVEK.P.K
GADHA.S
MOHAMED SHAREEF PARIYARATH
SANDEEP SUKUMARAN
RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT AND INJURED WITNESS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
2 SAI SWAROOP
AGED 22 YEARS
S/O VENUGOPAL, VANNARA HOUSE, NEAR IRINGOOR MAHASIVA
Crl.M.C.No.7566 of 2023
2
TEMPLE, VADAKARA, KOZHIKKOODE, PIN - 673101
3 MUHAMMED ARSHAD
AGED 23 YEARS
S/O ASIF, VALIYAKATH THACHILAKATH HOUSE,
THOYAKKAVU, VENKITANGU, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680513
BY ADV.
SRI.RENJITH T.R., PP
SRI.SYAM KUMAR M.P
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 26.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.7566 of 2023
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.7566 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. Petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.419/2022
on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,
Kalamassery arising from Crime No.430/2022 of
Kalamassery Police Station. The above case is
registered against the petitioners alleging offences
punishable under Sections 323, 341, 506, 294(b) r/w
34 IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused
Crl.M.C.No.7566 of 2023
wrongfully confined the victim and assaulted the
victim. It is also alleged that the accused used filthy
languages.
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 affidavits 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
Crl.M.C.No.7566 of 2023
the petitioners, victims and the Public Prosecutor and
has also gone through the records including the
affidavits 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. 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
Crl.M.C.No.7566 of 2023
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
Crl.M.C.No.7566 of 2023
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
Crl.M.C.No.7566 of 2023
accepted.
Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous case is
allowed. All further proceedings against the
petitioners in C.C.No.419/2022 on the file of the
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kalamassery
arising from Crime No.430/2022 of Kalamassery Police
Station are quashed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
DM JUDGE
Crl.M.C.No.7566 of 2023
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7566/2023
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL
REPORT AND MEMO OF EVIDENCE IN CRIME
NO. 430 OF 2022 OF KALAMASSEY POLICE
STATION
ANNEXURE A2 THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT
SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 17.08.2023
ANNEXURE A3 THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVITS
SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
DATED 17.08.2023
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS :NIL
//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE
