Kerala High Court
Libin vs State Of Kerala on 21 January, 2025
2025:KER:4901
Crl. Appeal No.137 of 2014
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 1ST MAGHA, 1946
CRL.A NO. 137 OF 2014
CRIME NO.782/2011 OF ALATHUR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD.
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.01.2014 IN SC NO.223 OF
2012 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF SESSION, PALAKKAD.
APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3:
1 LIBIN,
S/O.VELAYUDHAN, AGED 20 YEARS,
NERYAMPARAMBU,
PUDUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
2 RATHEESH,
AGED 21 YEARS,
S/O.CHANDRAN, NERYAMPARAMBU,
PUDUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
3 SABITH,
AGED 26 YEARS,
S/O.SWAMINATHAN, NERYAMPARAMBU,
PUDUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. SRI.S.RAJEEV
SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2025:KER:4901
Crl. Appeal No.137 of 2014
2
*ADDL.R2 VINOD, AGED 32 YEARS,
S/O VELAYUDHAN, POOVAKKODE HOUSE,
PADUR, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 543.
*ADDL.R3 VIJAYALAKSHMI, AGED 56 YEARS,
W/O.VELAYUDHAN N., POOVAKKODE HOUSE, PADUR,
ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 543.
ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL R2 & R3 RESPECTIVELY, AS PER
ORDER DTAED 28.11.24 IN CRL.M.A.2/2024 IN
CRLA.137/2014.
BY ADVS. ANAND KALYANAKRISHNAN
C.DHEERAJ RAJAN
LIBIN VARGHESE
SMT.SHEEBA THOMAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
21.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:4901
Crl. Appeal No.137 of 2014
3
C.S.SUDHA, J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Crl. Appeal No.137 of 2014
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of January 2025
JUDGMENT
In this appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. the
appellants who are accused nos.1 to 3 in S.C.No.223/2012 on the
file of the Court of Session, Palakkad, challenges the conviction
entered and sentence passed against them for the offences
punishable under Sections 448, 427 and 436 read with Section 34
IPC.
2. The prosecution case is that PW5 and the accused
persons hailing from the same locality are active supporters of rival
political parties. Two days prior to the incident, a bunk shop at
Padoor junction run by the father of one Kalesh was set ablaze. The
said act was alleged to have been done by PW5 and his men.
Hence, accused nos.1 to 3 along with a child in conflict with law,
2025:KER:4901
in retaliation and in furtherance of their common intention, on
25/10/2011 at about 12:30 a.m. trespassed into the property of
PW5, sprayed petrol on his auto-rickshaw bearing no.KL-49-8866
parked in a shed in front of his house and set fire to the vehicle as a
result of which the vehicle, a portion of the shed and also the front
roof portion of the residential building caught fire and was
damaged. By the said act of the accused persons PW5 and his
mother PW6 sustained a loss to the tune of ₹1,00,000/-. Thus, as
per the final report the accused persons were alleged to have
committed the offences punishable under Sections 448, 436 and
427 read with Section 34 IPC.
3. The trial court on a consideration of the oral and
documentary evidence and after hearing both sides found the
accused persons guilty of the offences punishable under Sections
448, 427 and 436 read with Section 34 IPC. They have been
sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years each and to pay
2025:KER:4901
a fine of ₹15,000/- each and in default to simple imprisonment for
nine months each under Section 436 IPC. For the offences
punishable under Sections 448 and 427 read with Section 34 IPC
they have been sentenced to a fine of ₹500/- each and ₹1000/- each
respectively and in default to simple imprisonment for two months
each and four months each respectively. Aggrieved the accused
nos.1 to 3 have come up in appeal.
4. When the appeal came up for hearing, it is submitted
that the matter has been settled amicably between the parties and
that PW5 and PW6 have adequately been compensated for the loss
caused by the accused persons. Affidavits have been filed by PW5
and PW6 in which it is stated that they have received compensation
for the loss sustained by them ; that they do not have any grievance
against the accused persons and that they do not want to prosecute
the case any further as the prosecution of the
appeal would affect the now cordial relationship between the
2025:KER:4901
parties residing in the same locality. The SHO, Alathur police
station, Palakkad district has filed a report to the effect that though
the matter has been settled between the parties, the accused persons
are - "(6)..............regular miscreants in the Station limit and cause
lot of hardships for the up keeping of public tranquillity in the
area. (7) It is submitted that although the de facto complainant has
decided to settle with the petitioners, allowing this petition will
give a wrong message to the public and a motivation to other
culprits and this will become a serious threat to the society. Hence,
on the grounds stated above, I strongly object the Cr.A filed by the
petitioners and it is submitted that, kindly accept this written
instruction and issue appropriate orders in the interest of justice."
5. It is true that the offence under Section 436 IPC is not
compoundable. But as held by the Apex Court in Ramgopal v.
State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 KHC 6543 and Suraj Singh
Gujar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 KHC OnLine 6481
2025:KER:4901
(SC), even in non compoundable cases, the High Court in exercise
of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can in exceptional cases
quash the proceedings after considering various factors like the
nature of injuries, relationship between the parties, the impact of
the crime on society, voluntary nature of the compromise between
the accused and the victim and the conduct of the accused persons
prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or
other relevant considerations.
6. In the case on hand, the act of the accused persons had
caused loss to PW5 and PW6 which have been adequately
compensated. Therefore, the interest of justice requires to put a
quietus to the dispute between the parties, residents of the same
locality as further prosecution of the case may disturb the cordial
relation between the parties. Hence in these circumstances, the
affidavit filed by PW5 and PW6 are taken on record. Invoking the
2025:KER:4901
powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., all proceedings
emanating out of the FIR leading to this criminal appeal shall
stand annulled and the judgment and orders passed by the trial
court are set aside. Resultantly, the appellants/accused persons shall
be deemed to have been acquitted of the charged offences for all
intents and purposes.
The appeal is allowed accordingly.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
Sd/-
C.S.SUDHA
JUDGE
ak
2025:KER:4901
APPELLANTS ANNEXURES:-
Annexure-I A COPY OF THE SWORN NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT
OF THE VICTIM DATED 18.10.2019.
RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES:-
Annexure R2(a) THE NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT OF THE 1ST
APPLICANT HEREIN DATED 21.11.2024
Annexure R2(b) THE NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND
APPLICANT HEREIN DATED 21.11.2024
