Kerala High Court
Jayesh vs State Of Kerala on 21 September, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 30TH BHADRA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 6806 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 1412/2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
FIRST CLASS - III, ATTINGAL (TEMPORARY)
PETITIONERS [ACCUSED PERSON NO.1 & 2]:
1 JAYESH
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O MADHAVANASSARI, AGED 39 YEARS, R/O VILAYIL VEEDU,
KUNNUVARAM, DECENTMUKKU, MUDPURAM, CHIRAYINKIL,
TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695304
2 SREEKANTH
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O MADHAVANASSARI, AGED 39 YEARS, R/O VILAYIL VEEDU,
KUNNUVARAM, DECENTMUKKU, MUDPURAM, CHIRAYINKIL,
TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695304
BY ADVS.
NAVANEETH.N.NATH
GAUTHAM KRISHNA E.J.
RESPONDENTS [STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT]:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
2 NITHIN
AGED 31 YEARS
S/O NADESAN ASSARI, AGED 31 YEARS, GEETHA NIVAS,
KUNNUVARAM, MUDAPURAM DESAM, KIZHUVILAM VILLAGE,
CHIRAYINKIL, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695304
BY ADV.SRI.RENJITH TR PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.6806 of 2023
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.6806 of 2023
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of September, 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.1412
of 2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court - III, Attingal arising from Crime
No.230/2019 of Chirayinkil Police Station. The
above case is registered against the petitioners
alleging offences punishable under Sections 451,
323, 324, 506(ii) & 34 IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused
Crl.M.C.No.6806 of 2023
assaulted the victim and criminally intimidated him
and thereby committed the above said offences.
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 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 petitioners, victim and the Public Prosecutor and
Crl.M.C.No.6806 of 2023
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
Crl.M.C.No.6806 of 2023
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
Crl.M.C.No.6806 of 2023
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
Crl.M.C.No.6806 of 2023
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 in C.C.No.1412 of
2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court - III, Attingal arising from Crime No.230/2019
of Chirayinkil Police Station are quashed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
DM JUDGE
Crl.M.C.No.6806 of 2023
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6806/2023
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE-A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.230/2019
OF CHIRAYINKIL POLICE STATION,
TRIVANDRUM
ANNEXURE-B TRUE COPY COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT
(CC NO. 1412/2019) DATED 28.2.2019
ANNEXURE-C TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT
AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS :NIL
//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE
