Kerala High Court
Deepuraj @ Deepu vs The State Of Kerala on 27 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 5TH KARTHIKA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 8774 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER IN SC 1526/2015 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS
COURT, ATTINGAL
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:
DEEPURAJ @ DEEPU, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. MANIRAJ,
KIZHAKKEDATHU VEEDU, MELATTINGAL DESOM, ALAMCODE
VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695102
BY ADVS.
ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH
K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH)
PRAJIT RATNAKARAN
RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED REPRESENTED
THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 BALAJI @ BALAKRISHNAN.C, AGED 42 YEARS
S/O. CHELLAPPA XV/900, AKSHAY BHAVAN, ALAMCODE
P.O., MELATTINGAL DESOM, POOVAMPARA VILAYIL NEAR
DEVI TEMPLE, ATTINGAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 695141
3 BAIJU, AGED 41 YEARS
S/O. SHIVANANDAN, VAISHNAVI BHAVAN MELATTINGAL,
ALAMCODE.P.O., MELATTINGAL DESOM, POOVAMPARA
VILAYIL, NEAR DEVI TEMPLE, ALAMCODE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695102
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI HRITHWIK C.S, PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.8774/2023 2
P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.8774 of 2023
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th 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 petitioner is the accused in S.C.No.1526/2015 on
the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Attingal arising from Crime
No.35/2005 of the Attingal Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram.
The above case is chargesheeted alleging offences punishable under
sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 341, 323 and 308 of the Indian Penal
Code.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused formed
themselves into an unlawful assembly and assaulted the victim.
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 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. It is also
submitted that the co-accused were also acquitted.
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, 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
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.
The further proceedings as against the petitioner in
S.C.No.1526/2015 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court,
Attingal arising from Crime No.35/2005 of the Attingal Police
Station, Thiruvananthapuram are quashed.
Sd/-
P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
Sbna/
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 8774/2023
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
CRIME NO. 35/2005 OF THE ATTINGAL
POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Annexure 2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN SC NO.
492/2008 DATED 18.06.2015
Annexure 3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL MC
2160/2020 DATED 18.03.2020
Annexure 4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL MC
4358/2020 DATED 30.10. 2020
Annexure 5 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY
THE RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED 11.10.2021
Annexure 6 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY
THE RESPONDENT NO.3 DATED 12.10.2021
