Kerala High Court
Xxxxxx vs The 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. 3496 OF 2024
CRIME NO.592/2023 OF FORT POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SC NO.2307 OF 2023 OF SPECIAL
COURT UNDER POCSO ACT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER:
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
BY ADV HAIRA
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682031
2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, FORT POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY, PIN - 695036
3 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
4 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
BY ADV
SMT. SEETHA S - SR.PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CrlMC 3496/24
2
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 Crime
No.592/2023 of Fort Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram,
which is now pending as Sessions Case No.2407/2023 on the
files of the Additional District and Sessions Court (POCSO),
Thiruvananthapuram, wherein charge sheet has been
submitted for the offences punishable under Section 342,
366, 376 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3, 4, 5(1)
and 6 of the 'POCSO Act'.
3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner and the
3rd respondent were in love and they eloped. Meanwhile, the
4th respondent filed complaint and the 2 nd respondent lodged
Annexure 1 FIR. After investigation, Annexure 3 Final Report
was submitted alleging the aforesaid offences. It is submitted
that the petitioner married the 3rd respondent and is now
living happily with her. It is also submitted that the 3 rd
respondent is now pregnant. The learned counsel for the
petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in Vishnu v
State of Kerala [2023(4) KHC 1] and submitted that since
his client married the 3rd respondent and they are living
happily, criminal proceedings against him may be quashed.
4. It is true that the offence alleged against the
petitioner is serious in nature, but it is the fact that the
petitioner married the 3rd respondent and they are living
happily. The 3rd respondent is now pregnant. Bearing in mind
the principle laid down by this Court in Vishnu's case
(supra), I think the proceedings can be quashed.
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
and all further proceedings against the petitioner in SC
No.2407/2023 on the files of the Additional District and
Sessions Court (POCSO), Thiruvananthapuram, arising from
Crime No.592/2023 of Fort Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram, are quashed.
Sd/-
RR P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
