Kerala High Court
Biju vs Rajimol V.M 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. 2923 OF 2024
CRIME NO.6/2019 OF ALAPPUZHA NORTH POLICE STATION, Alappuzha
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.753 OF 2019 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, ALAPPUZHA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
BIJU,
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O. RAJAPPAN, RAJ NIVAS,MARARIKULAM SOUTH
PANCHAYATH, WARD NO. 7, ALAPPUZHA., PIN - 688522
BY ADV GEORGE SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND STATE:
1 RAJIMOL V.M.
AGED 36 YEARS
D/O. MANIYAPPAN, KARUNALAYAM VEEDU, MSPW 9,
ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA NORTH., PIN - 688007
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. JAYAN C DAS R1.. SMT. SHEEBA THOMAS 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.2923 of 2024
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
---------------------
CRL.MC No.2923 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 an accused in C.C.No.753/2019
on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I,
Alappuzha arising from Crime No.6/2019 of Alappuzha
North Police Station. The above case is charge sheeted
against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under
Sections 323, 324, 294(b) IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused
assaulted the victim and used filthy language.
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 affidavits 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 against the petitioner in
C.C.No.753/2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court-I, Alappuzha arising from Crime No.6/2019
of Alappuzha North Police Station are quashed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
bng
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT
OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 10.01.2019 IN
CRIME 6/2019 OF THE ALAPPUZHA NORTH
POLICE STATION NOW PENDING AS
CC753/2019 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT - I ALAPPUZHA
Annexure B ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 28.02.2024
