Nimil George Santhosh vs State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 9920 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                          PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 27TH BHADRA, 1945
                  CRL.MC NO. 6439 OF 2023
 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 210/2023 OF JUDL. MAGI. OF
                 FIRST CLASS-III, KOTTAYAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

          NIMIL GEORGE SANTHOSH
          AGED 22 YEARS
          S/O SANTHOSH, PERINGATUPARAMBIL HOUSE,
          MANATHOOR P.O., THIRUMARADI, KOOTHATUKULAM,
          ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 686651
          BY ADVS.
          K.MOHAMMED RAFEEQ
          P.M.MATHEW
          AMARNATH R LAL
          VISHNUMAYA ANANDAN
          FIDA P.
          SANALDEV E.P.


RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:

    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
          HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
    2     STATION HOUSE OFFICER
          MANARKAD POLICE STATION,
          KOTTAYAM DISTRICT., PIN - 686019
    3     VINU KRISHNAN
          AGED 34 YEARS
          S/O RADHAKRISHNAN, ERAVUKAADU BHAGAM,
          ALAPPUZHA WEST, THIRUVAMBADI P.O,
          ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT., PIN - 688002
 CRL. M.C. NO.6439 OF 2023


                                2


           BY ADVS.
           SRI. BIBIN MATHEW


PRESENT:

           SRI. HRITWICK C.S,        PP



      THIS   CRIMINAL   MISC.       CASE   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 18.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRL. M.C. NO.6439 OF 2023


                            3




            P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
            --------------------------------
           Crl.M.C. No. 6439 of 2023
     ----------------------------------------------
 Dated this the 18th 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 C.C.

No.210/2023 on the files of Judicial Magistrate of First

Class - III, Kottayam, arising from Crime No.838/2022

of Manarcaud Police Station, Kottayam. The above

case is charge sheeted against the petitioner alleging

offences punishable under Sections 419, 420 and 511

of IPC.

3. The prosecution case is that the accused

committed cheating.

CRL. M.C. NO.6439 OF 2023

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 CRL. M.C. NO.6439 OF 2023

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 CRL. M.C. NO.6439 OF 2023

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 CRL. M.C. NO.6439 OF 2023

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 CRL. M.C. NO.6439 OF 2023

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 C.C. No.210/2023 on the files of Judicial

Magistrate of First Class - III, Kottayam, arising from

Crime No.838/2022 of Manarcaud Police Station,

Kottayam, are quashed.

Sd/-

                                  P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
nvj                                      JUDGE
 CRL. M.C. NO.6439 OF 2023







               APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6439/2023

PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE-1          CERTIFIED   COPY    OF   THE    FIRST
                    INFORMATION    REPORT    IN     CRIME
                    NO.838/2022   OF   MANARKAD    POLICE
                    STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
ANNEXURE-2          CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE-SHEET

SUBMITTED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III, KOTTAYAM.

ANNEXURE3 ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT DATED 14.06.2023 SWORN BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS          :NIL


                        //TRUE COPY//


                            PA TO JUDGE