Kerala High Court
Rinku vs State Of Kerala on 25 April, 2025
Crl. M. C. No. 2652 of 2025
-1-
2025:KER:33126
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 5TH VAISAKHA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 2652 OF 2025
CRIME NO.39/2012 OF KAZHAKKUTTOM POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN LP NO.9 OF 2023
OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT/ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, ATTINGAL
PETITIONERS:
1 RINKU, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O RAJAN,
HOUSE NO 350,KADINAKULAM PUTHENTHOPE
DESOM, MENAMKULAM VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695582
2 AJEESH, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O MICHEL,
KADINAKULAM PUTHENTHOPE DESOM, MENAMKULAM
VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695582
BY ADV M.R.SARIN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KAZHAKKUTTAM
POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695582
3 ANOOP FERNANDEZ, AGED 32 YEARS,
S/O YESUDAS, ANITHA COTTAGE,NEAR RADIO
PARK, PUTHENTHOPPE ,KADINAMKULAM VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695582
Crl. M. C. No. 2652 of 2025
-2-
2025:KER:33126
BY ADVS.
SMT.PARVATHI KRISHNA
SR.PP- SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN A.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 25.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl. M. C. No. 2652 of 2025
-3-
2025:KER:33126
ORDER
This petition is filed invoking the powers of this Court
under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
(for short, 'BNSS').
2. The petitioners herein are the accused in Crime No.
39 of 2012 of the Kazhakkuttam Police Station registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 308 and
34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. The prosecution allegation is that due to previous
enmity towards the de facto complainant, on 07.11.2012, the
accused persons with the intention to bodily harm the de facto
complainant, injured him with spade and stone.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the parties have settled their dispute and do not wish to pursue
the prosecution proceedings. He relies on the affidavit filed by
the third respondent in support of his contention. Learned
counsel argues that if the proceedings are terminated, with the
recording of the amicable settlement, the parties can move
forward in an atmosphere of peace and mutual respect.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, has
expressed reservations about quashing the proceedings solely
on the basis of the settlement. He argues that the facts and
circumstances may not warrant the exercise of the court's
2025:KER:33126
inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. However,
it is fairly submitted that there have been no other crimes of
serious nature registered against the petitioners to date. It is
further submitted that the statement of the party respondent
has been recorded, and he has unequivocally stated that he
does not have any lasting grievances.
6. I have considered the submissions and have gone
through the records.
7. In State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan [(2019)5 SCC
688], a three-judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
summarized the law as laid down in Gian Singh v. State of
Punjab [(2012)10 SCC 303], Narinder Singh v. State of
Punjab [2014(6) SCC 466] and in subsequent cases. It was
laid down as under:
15. Considering the law on the point and
the other decisions of this Court on the point referred to
hereinabove, it is observed and held as under:
15.1. That the power conferred under
Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal
proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under
Section 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;
15.2. 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;
15.3. Similarly, such power is not to be
exercised for the offences under the special statutes like
the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences
committed by public servants while working in that
2025:KER:33126
capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of
compromise between the victim and the offender;
15.4. Offences under Section 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 Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act, etc.
which have a serious impact on the society cannot be
quashed in exercise of powers under Section 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 Section 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 Section
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 Section 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/delicate 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
paras 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in
Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab,
(2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] should be read
harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in
the circumstances stated hereinabove;
15.5. While exercising the power under
Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal
proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offenses,
which are private in nature and do not have a serious
impact 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. Having carefully analyzed the prayer sought for in
the light of the principles laid down as above and also the
nature of the allegations, the gravity of the offence, the severity
2025:KER:33126
of injuries inflicted, antecedents of the accused, and the
amicable relationship that now exists between the parties, I am
of the considered opinion that quashing the proceedings on the
basis of the settlement will not have any adverse impact on
society. In fact, it would only serve to bring about peace and
secure the ends of justice. Additionally, persisting with the
prosecution would be a waste of time, as the prospects of
conviction are bleak. In the light of all of the relevant
circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court
would be well justified in invoking its extraordinary powers
under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the proceedings.
This petition is allowed. Annexure A1 FIR in Crime No.
39 of 2012 of the Kazhakkuttam Police Station and all further
proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners are
quashed.
Sd/-
K. V. JAYAKUMAR
JUDGE
Eb
2025:KER:33126
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO
39/2012 IN KAZHAKKUTTAM POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 7.01.2012
Annexure A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN CRIME NO
39/2012 OF KAZHAKKUTTAM POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM NOW PENDING AS L.P
NO 9/2023 ON THE FILES OF ASSISTANT
SESSIONS COURT, ATTINGAL
Annexure A3 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
