Kerala High Court
Nishanth 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. 3481 OF 2024
CRIME NO.125/2022 OF Kolathur Police Station, Malappuram
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.250 OF 2022 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, PERINTHALMANNA
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4:
1 NISHANTH, AGED 32 YEARS
S/O NARAYANAN, KALARIKKAL, BEMMANNUR, PARUTHIPULLI,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 678731
2 YASODA, AGED 65 YEARS
W/O NARAYANAN, KALARIKKAL, BEMMANNUR, PARUTHIPULLI,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 678731
3 NISHA, AGED 36 YEARS
D/O NARAYANAN, KALARIKKAL, BEMMANNUR, PARUTHIPULLI,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 678731
4 RAVEENDRAN, AGED 45 YEARS
MELARKKOD,PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 678731
BY ADVS.
P.S.ANISHAD
LIMNA BHASKARAN
K.K.SHEEBA
ARCHANA MITHRAN O.K.
RESPONDENTS/STATE/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
2 SREEVIDYA
AGED 26 YEARS
D/O LATE SASIDEVAN, RESIDING AT KALARIKKAL, KURUVA,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 678731
SMT.SHEEBA THOMAS, PP,
SRI.K.R.ARUN KRISHNAN FOR RESPONDENT
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. 3481 OF 2024 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN J.
........................................................................
Crl.M.C.No. 3481 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 petitioners are the accused in C.C. No.250/2022
on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I,
Perinthalmanna, arising from Crime No.125/2022 of Kolathur
Police Station. The above case is registered, alleging offences
punishable under Sections 498A and 406 r/w. Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case is that, the petitioners mentally
and physically harassed the de facto complainant and thereby,
they committed the offences alleged against them.
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 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
petitioners, 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 in C.C. No.250/2022 on the file of the
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perinthalmanna,
arising from Crime No.125/2022 of Kolathur Police Station, as
against the petitioners, are quashed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
ajt
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 A CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME
NO.125/2022 OF KOLATHUR POLICE STATION,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, DATED 17.03.2022
Annexure A2 AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/DE-
FACTO COMPLAINANT, DATED 30.11.2023
