Kerala High Court

Sajikumar vs State Of Kerala Represented By The ... on 23 April, 2024

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

CRL.MC NO. 1870 OF 2024               1



                 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. 1870 OF 2024
     CRIME NO.1122/2018 OF Kollam West Police Station, Kollam
AGAINST      THE    ORDER/JUDGMENT    DATED    IN   CC   NO.113   OF   2019   OF
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - III, KOLLAM
PETITIONER/S:

      1        SAJIKUMAR
               AGED 47 YEARS
               S/O PURUSHOTHAMAN VADAKKEVILA VEEDU, NEDUMPANA
               CHERRY, NEDUMPANA VILLAGE, NEDUMPANA PO, KOLLAM
               (DIST)-, PIN - 691576

      2        AJAYABOASE
               AGED 46 YEARS
               S/O MOHANACHANDRAN KADAYAZHIKAM VEEDU,
               UDAYAMARTHANDAPURAM CHERRY, MUNDAKKAL EAST VILLAGE,
               MUNDAKKAL PO, KOLLAM (DIST)-, PIN - 691010

      3        AJI THOMAS
               AGED 44 YEARS
               S/O KUNJUKUNJU KUREEPPALLY KALPANA HOUSE
               NADUVILAKKARA CHERRY, THRIKKOVILVATTAM VILLAGE,
               THRIKKOVILVATTAM PO, KOLLAM (DIST)-, PIN - 691576

      4        BIJU P JOHN
               AGED 42 YEARS
               S/O JOHN KUREEPPALLY BINU BHAVAN NADUVILAKKARA
               CHERRY, THRIKKOVILVATTAM VILLAGE, THRIKKOVILVATTAM
               PO, KOLLAM (DIST), PIN - 691576

      5        SAJEEV
               AGED 56 YEARS
               S/O BHRAHMANGADAN SIJU BHAVAN NEDUMPANA CHERRY,
               NEDUMPANA VILLAGE, NEDUMPANA PO, KOLLAM (DIST)-, PIN
 CRL.MC NO. 1870 OF 2024           2


               - 691576

      6        VINOD PURUSHOTHAMAN
               AGED 54 YEARS
               S/O PURUSHOTHAMAN VADAKKEKKARAVILA VEEDU NEDUMPANA
               CHERRY, NEDUMPANA VILLAGE, NEDUMPANA PO, KOLLAM
               (DIST)-, PIN - 691576

               BY ADV M.RAJESH


RESPONDENT/S:
     1    STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
          HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

      2        THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
               KOLLAM WEST POLICE STATION CIVIL STATION PO, KOLLAM,
               PIN - 691013

      3        NISAR
               AGED 59 YEARS
               S/O ABU MUHAMMED ANEEBZ VEEDU, KAITHAVARAM NAGAR-
               67, PUNNATHALA CHERRY, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE,
               THIRUMULLAVARAM PO, KOLLAM, PIN - 691012

      4        BEENA
               AGED 50 YEARS
               W/O ADVOCATE NISAR, ANEEBZ VEEDU, KAITHAVARAM NAGAR-
               67, PUNNATHALA CHERRY, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE,
               THIRUMULLAVARAM PO, KOLLAM, PIN - 691012

               BY ADV C.R.JAYAKUMAR


OTHER PRESENT:
          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:
 CRL.MC NO. 1870 OF 2024             3




                      P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                  ---------------------------------------
                     Crl.M.C. No. 1870 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 CC No. 113/2019

on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III,

Kollam arising from Crime No. 1122/2018 of Kollam West

Police Station. The above case is registered alleging offences

punishable under Secs.143, 147, 294(b), 341, 427, 506(i) r/w

Sec.149 of the IPC.

3. The prosecution case is that the accused formed

themselves into an unlawful assembly and wrongfully

restrained the victim and used filthy language. It is also

alleged that the accused criminally intimidated the victims.

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

petitioners, victims 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 CC No. 113/2019

on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III,

Kollam arising from Crime No. 1122/2018 of Kollam West

Police Station are quashed.

Sd/-