Kerala High Court

Hemanth K,O vs State Of Kerala on 8 September, 2023

CRL.MC NO. 6280 OF 2023               1



                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                     PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
    FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 17TH BHADRA, 1945
                             CRL.MC NO. 6280 OF 2023
  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 40/2023 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
                          OF FIRST CLASS IV, ETTUMANOOR
PETITIONER/S:
          HEMANTH K,OAGED 23 YEARSS/O OMANAKKUTTAN,
          KOTTUVILAYIL HOUSE, VETTIYAR P.O, VETTIYAR VILLAGE,
          ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690558

               BY ADVS.
               ABDUL JALEEL.A
               M.A.SULFIA
               P.J.SHIJO
               ARUN NARAYANAN
               M.J.PAVU
               K.M.ABDUL MAJEED


RESPONDENT/S:
    1     STATE OF KERALAREPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH
          COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031

      2        THE SHOGHANDHI NAGAR POLICE STATION , KOTTAYAM
               DISTRICT, PIN - 686008

      3        GEEVAR SHAJUAGED 20 YEARSS/O SHAJU VARGHESE
               VATHIYAMPILLIL HOUSE, THRIKKALATHUR P.O, MULAVOOR
               VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN
               - 686673


OTHER PRESENT:
          SEENA . C PP


       THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRL.MC NO. 6280 OF 2023                2




                        P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                    ---------------------------------------
                       Crl.M.C. No. 6280 of 2023
                     --------------------------------------
              Dated this the 8th 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. The petitioner is the accused in Cc No. 40/2023 on

the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I,

Ettumanoor arising from Crime No. 1888/2022 of Gandhi

Nagar Police Station. The above case is registered against the

petitioner alleging offences punishable under Secs.323, 324

and 325 IPC.

3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner assaulted

the defacto complainant and he sustained grievous hurt.

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

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

petitioner, victim and the Public Prosecutor and 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 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. All

further proceedings against the petitioner in CC No. 40/2023

on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I,

Ettumanoor arising in Crime No. 1888/2022 of Gandhi Nagar

Police Station are quashed.

Sd/-