Kerala High Court
Xxxxxx 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. 2650 OF 2024
CRIME NO.714/2022 OF KOYILANDY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SC NO.177 OF 2023 OF FAST
TRACK SPECIAL COURT, KOYILANDY
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
BY ADV K.DEEPA (PAYYANUR)
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
3 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
BY ADV K.BHAVYA GOPAL
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.M.C.No. 2650/2024
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 2650 of 2024
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of April, 2023
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 S.C.No.177/2023 of
Fast Track Special Court (FTSC) for Speedy Disposal of Rape
Cases & Cases Registered under POCSO Act, Koyilandy
arising from Crime No. 714/2022 of Koyilandy Police Station,
Kozhikode. The above case is charge sheeted against the
petitioner alleging offences punishable under Section 354-
A(2) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 10 r/w.9(f), 12 r/w.
11(i) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
3. The prosecution case is that on 30.10.2022 at 4.00
pm, the accused who is the Director of an Educational
Institution, caught the cheeks and nose of the minor victim
girl aged 15 years, who was a student of that institution,
tried to kiss on her face and told her that she was beautiful.
Hence it is alleged that accused committed the offence.
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/s has/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, 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.
9. Moreover, this Court perused the facts of the case
in the light of the principle laid down by this Court in Vishnu
vs. State of Kerala (2023 (4) KHC 1). Considering the
facts and circumstances of the case, I think the prosecution
can be quashed.
Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous case is allowed.
All further proceedings against the petitioner in
S.C.No.177/2023 of Fast Track Special Court (FTSC) for
Speedy Disposal of Rape Cases & Cases Registered under
POCSO Act, Koyilandy arising from Crime No. 714/2022 of
Koyilandy Police Station, Kozhikode are quashed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
APA
