Madhusoothanan Nair @ Raghu vs State Of Kerala
2024 Latest Caselaw 11460 Ker

Kerala High Court

Madhusoothanan Nair @ Raghu 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. 3430 OF 2024
      CRIME NO.1114/2012 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION,
                          PATHANAMTHITTA
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.125 OF 2019 OF JUDICIAL
           MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,PATHANAMTHITTA


PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 6:

    1     MADHUSOOTHANAN NAIR @ RAGHU
          AGED 54 YEARS
          S/O KRISHNAN NAIR,
          KUNNUMPALLIL VEEDU, PANNIYALI,
          OMALLOOR P O, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689647
    2     RAJEESH @INKU
          AGED 44 YEARS, S/O GOPALAKRISHNANACHARI,
          PAWWATH THEKKEMURIYIL OMALLOOR P O,
          PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689647
    3     JALESH KUMAR
          AGED 35 YEARS
          S/O JAGANATHAKURUP GANESH NIWAS,
          PANNIYALI, OMALLOOR P O,
          PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689647
    4     RATHEESH
          AGED 34 YEARS
          S/O RAJU MEPPURATH VEEDU,
          PANNIYALI, OMALLOOR P O,
          PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689647
    5     RAMESH
          AGED 36 YEARS
          S/O MOHANAN NAIR, RAMESH VILASAM,
          PANNIYALI, OMALLOOR P O,
          PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689647
    6     ANEESH KUMAR @ SUDHEESH
          AGED 43 YEARS, S/O BHASKARAN NAIR,
          KODATH VEEDU, PANNIYALI, OMALLOOR P O,
          PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689647
          BY ADVS.
          M.T.SURESHKUMAR
          MANJUSHA K
          SREELAKSHMI SABU
                                2



RESPONDENTS/STATE, DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & INJURED WITNESS:

    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
          HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
    2     ASWIN VINOD
          AGED 24 YEARS
          S/O VINOD KUMAR, OTHARETHU HOUSE,
          NEAR PANYALI GANAPATHY TEMPLE,
          OMALLOOR VILLAGE,
          PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689647
    3     VINOD KUMAR
          AGED 51 YEARS
          S/O PACHU NAIR OTHARETHU HOUSE,
          NEAR PANYALI GANAPATHY TEMPLE,
          OMALLOOR VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689647
    4     BINDU
          AGED 38 YEARS
          W/O VINOD KUMAR, OTHARETHU HOUSE,
          NEAR PANYALI GANAPATHY TEMPLE,
          OMALLOOR VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689647
          BY ADV JOSE ANTONY
         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:
                                    3




                      P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
                    --------------------------------
                     Crl.M.C. No. 3430 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. Petitioners are accused in C.C.No.125/2019 on the

file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta

arising from Crime No.1114/2012 of Pathanamthitta Police

Station. The above case is charge sheeted against the

petitioners alleging offences punishable under Section

294(b), 324, 452, 506(i) r/w 34 of the IPC.

3. The prosecution case is that, due to previous

animosity, the petitioners herein tried to trespass into the

house of the defacto complainant and when the 4 th

respondent, who is the mother of the defacto complainant

tried to prevent them from trespassing, the 2 nd accused

caught her by her neck and her nighty was torn. On seeing

this, the defacto complainant interfered and he was

assaulted by the petitioners resulting in injury to his

forehead. When the father of the de facto complainant tried

to rescue him, he was also assaulted and abused with filthy

language.

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 victims in support of his contention.

The counsel appearing for the victims also submitted that the

matter is settled and the victims have 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/s and the Public Prosecutor and has also

gone through the records including the affidavits filed by the

victims.

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 petitioners in

C.C.No.125/2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class

Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta arising from Crime

No.1114/2012 of Pathanamthitta Police Station are quashed.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE APA

PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 1114 OF 2012 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION DATED 22-9-2012 Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT FILED THE JUDICIAL FIRST-CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA AS CC NO. 125 OF 2019 DATED 13-10-2012 Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DULY SIGNED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23-5-2023 Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT DULY SIGNED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 8-2-2024 Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT DULY SIGNED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 8-2-2024