Kerala High Court
Movind vs State Of Kerala on 23 April, 2024
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
CRL.MC NO. 3234 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. 3234 OF 2024
CRIME NO.1193/2014 OF Attingal Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SC NO.1754 OF 2022 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT (ATROCITIES & SEXUAL
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN & CHILDREN),THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/S:
MOVIND
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O MURALIDHARAN, GIRIJA NIVAS, PARAYADI, PIRISHAL
KOTTUKONAM, POYYIKAMUKU DESOM, MUDAKKAL VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695103
BY ADVS.
M.R.SARIN
PARVATHI KRISHNA
ASHA MARY KURIAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
2 XXX
AGED 27 YEARS
XXXXXXXXXXXXX, PIN - 695101
CRL.MC NO. 3234 OF 2024 2
3 YYY
AGED 50 YEARS
YYYYYYYY, PIN - 695101
4 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
ATTINGAL POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695101
BY ADV Saumya P.S
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. 3234 OF 2024 3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
---------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 3234 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 accused in SC No.1754/2022 on
the file of the Addl. District and Sessions Court (Atrocities &
Sexual Violence against Women & Children),
Thiruvananthapuram arising from Crime No. 1193/2014 of
Attingal Police Station. The above case is chargesheeted alleging
offences punishable under Sec.8 of the POCSO Act.
3. The prosecution case is that on 08.08.2014 at 12.45
pm, when the defacto complainant was coming back from the
tuition class, the accused person forced her and took her to the
'Tapasya Theatre' to watch the movie and sexually abused her.
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 affidavits
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, 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.
9. This Court also considered the dictum laid down in
Vishnu v. State of Kerala [2023 (4) KHC 1]. Following the
above principle, I think the proceedings against the petitioner
can be quashed.
Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous case is allowed. All
further proceedings against the petitioner in SC No.1754/2022
on the file of the Addl. District and Sessions Court (Atrocities &
Sexual Violence against Women & Children),
Thiruvananthapuram arising from Crime No. 1193/2014 of
Attingal Police Station are quashed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
SKS
