Kerala High Court

Jayaram 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. 2322 OF 2024
   CRIME NO.9/2016 OF ANCHALUMMOODU POLICE STATION, KOLLAM
   AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SC NO.65 OF 2017 OF
     ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT/ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,KOLLAM
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED A1 TO A9:

    1     JAYARAM
          AGED 33 YEARS
          S/O MANIKANDAN, MANIKANDA BHAVAN, NEAR PANANYAM
          TEMPLE, PANAYAM CHERRY, PANAYAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM
          DISTRICT., PIN - 691601

    2     PRADEEP
          AGED 39 YEARS
          S/O MURALI, PREETHALAYAM VEEDU, INCHAVILA CHERRY,
          MULACKKAL VAYAL THRIKKARUVA VILLAGE, KOLLAM
          DISTRICT., PIN - 691602

    3     PRASHANTH
          AGED 35 YEARS
          S/O MURALI, PREETHALAYAM VEEDU, INCHAVILA CHERRY,
          MULACKKAL VAYAL THRIKKARUVA VILLAGE, KOLLAM
          DISTRICT., PIN - 691602

    4     RATHEESH
          AGED 31 YEARS
          S/O RAJENDRAN PILLA @ RAJU, THAZHATHETHIL HOUSE,
          VADAKKEKKARA CHERRY THRIKKARUVA VILLAGE, KOLLAM
          DISTRICT., PIN - 691602

    5     RATHEESH CHANDRAN @ ACHU
          AGED 31 YEARS
          S/O RAMACHANDRAN PILLA, VATTETTU VEEDU, THATTUVILA
          CHERRY, THRIKKARUVA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT., PIN -
          691602

    6     THOBHIYAS @ JOY
          AGED 44 YEARS
          S/O CHACKO, KOTTARAM PUTHUVEL PURAYIDOM, MATHILIL
          CHERRY, THRIKKADAVOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT., PIN
          - 691601
 CRL.MC No.2322 of 2024

                              2

    7     VINESH
          AGED 33 YEARS
          S/O. VIJAYAN, VAYALIL PUTHEN VEEDU, THATTUVILA
          CHERRY, THRIKKARUVA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.,
          PIN - 691602

    8     SUCHITHRAKUMAR
          AGED 33 YEARS
          S/O. CHITHRAKUMAR, CHIPPY BHAVANAM, VADAKKEKKARA
          CHERRY, THRIKKARUVA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.,
          PIN - 691602

    9     ASHWINIKUMAR @ KINNAN
          AGED 34 YEARS
          S/O. SASIDHARAN, KUTHIRAPANTHIYIL, INCHAVILA
          CHERRY, THRIKKARUVA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.,
          PIN - 691602

          BY ADV P.V.DILEEP



RESPONDENTS/STATE:

    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
          OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031

    2     THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
          ANCHALUMMOODU POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT.,
          PIN - 691601

    3     RAJITH
          AGED 34 YEARS
          S/O RAJU, PANAMOOTTIL VEEDU, NEAR ASHTAMUDI
          TEMPLE, VADAKKEKARA CHERRY, THRIKKARUVA VILLAGE
          KOLLAM DISTRICT., PIN - 691602

    4     RANJEESH
          AGED 32 YEARS
          S/O RAJU, PANAMOOTTIL VEEDU, NEAR ASHTAMUDI
          TEMPLE, VADAKKEKARA CHERRY, THRIKKARUVA VILLAGE
          KOLLAM DISTRICT., PIN - 691602

    5     ANEESH KUMAR
          AGED 34 YEARS
          S/O ARJUNAN, VALIYAVILA PUTHENVEEDU, VADAKKEKKARA
 CRL.MC No.2322 of 2024

                                 3

          CHERRYIL SCHOOL, THRIKKARUVA VILLAGE KOLLAM
          DISTRICT., PIN - 691602


OTHER PRESENT:

          ADV. K,V ANIL KUMAR -SR,PP SR.PP S. SEETHA




      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.2322 of 2024

                                4

                   P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
               ---------------------
                   CRL.MC No.2322 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 S.C.No.65/2017

on the files of the Assistant Sessions Court, Kollam arising

from Crime No.9/2016 of Anchalummoodu Police Station,

Kollam. The above case is charge sheeted against the

petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections

143, 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 341, 324, 308 r/w Section 149

IPC.

3. The prosecution case is that the accused formed

themselves into unlawful assembly and assaulted the

victims and used filthy language. It is submitted that

counter case is already quashed by this Court as per

judgment dated 09.04.2024 in Crl.MC No.2370/2024.

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

S.C.No.65/2017 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Court,

Kollam arising from Crime No.9/2016 of Anchalummoodu

Police Station, Kollam are quashed.

Sd/-