Kerala High Court

Shan Sebastian vs State Of Kerala on 23 April, 2024

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
         TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 3RD VAISAKHA, 1946
                         CRL.MC NO. 3591 OF 2024
            Crime no.863/2022 of vidyanagar police station,
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 06.04.2024 IN CC NO.1890 OF 2022 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KASARAGOD
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

             SHAN SEBASTIAN
             AGED 25 YEARS
             S/O. SEBASTIAN, MATTAPPALY, VELIMANAM, KANNUR, PIN - 673639
             BY ADVS.
             K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN
             N.P.ASHA


RESPONDENT/STATE & VUCTUN:

     1       STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN
             - 682031
     2       HRIDYA LAKSHMI.P
             AGED 25 YEARS
             D/O. SASIDHARAN.T, KAILASAM, EACHIKULANGARA, PILICODE.P.O.,
             PILICODE VILLAGE, KASARGODE DISTRICT, PIN - 671310
             BY ADV JOEL THOMAS
             SMT. SHEEBA THOMAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR


     THIS   CRIMINAL   MISC.   CASE   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
23.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRL.MC NO. 3591 OF 2024
                              2

             P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
        ...............................................
            Crl.M.C.No.3591 of 2024
         ..............................................
     Dated this the 23rd day of April, 2024

                          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 sole accused in C.C.No.1890 of

2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court

- I, Kasargod, arising from Crime No.863 of 2022 of

Vidyanagar Police Station. The above case is registered

alleging offences punishable under Section 354 A(i)(ii) and

506(i) IPC.

3. The prosecution case is that on 09.11.2022 at 11.30

a.m., the accused intimidated the second respondent

stating that he will morph the photo and circulate in the

social media to defame the defacto complainant, if she do

not agree to the sexual favours advanced by the accused CRL.MC NO. 3591 OF 2024

and thereby committed the offence.

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 CRL.MC NO. 3591 OF 2024

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 CRL.MC NO. 3591 OF 2024

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 CRL.MC NO. 3591 OF 2024

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

C.C.No.1890 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class

Magistrate Court - I, Kasargod, arising from Crime

No.863/2022 of Vidyanagar Police Station as against the

petitioner are quashed.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

RK CRL.MC NO. 3591 OF 2024

PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure-I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 863/2022 OF VIDHYANAGAR POLICE STATION, KASARGOD DISTRICT Annexure -II NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT DATED 06.04.20df 24 SWORN BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 BEFORE THE NOTARY PUBLIC