High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed; proceedings against petitioners in SC ...

Abhijith.K & Akshay Prakash.V.K v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:CRL.MC NO. 6058 OF 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date
2023-09-07
Court Decision / Holding
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in SC No. 788 of 2020 arising from Crime No. 62/2018 Nadapuram Police Station are quashed.
Final Disposition
Quashed; proceedings against petitioners in SC No. 788/2020 quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • ABHIJITH.K
  • AKSHAY PRAKASH.V.K

Respondents

  • STATE OF KERALA represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
  • RAHUL
  • AKSHAY
  • SIVAPRAKASH

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • RAMEES P.K.
  • • RAJESH KUMAR R.
  • • M.B.SHYNI

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case (CrL.M.C. No. 6058 of 2023) was heard by a Single Judge of the Kerala High Court, P. V. Kunhikrishnan, on 7 September 2023. The petitioners Abhijith.K and Akshay Prakash.V.K challenge the order in SC No. 788 of 2020 arising from Nadapuram Police Station Crime No. 62/2018, which charged them under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, and 308 read with 149 IPC. The petition seeks to quash the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC on the ground that the parties have settled the dispute, with affidavits from victims in support. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about quashing solely on settlement but acknowledged the dispute had been settled. After considering the pleadings, affidavits, and the record, the court referred to State of Madhya Pradesh v Laxmi Narayan (2019) (5) SCC 688, and the earlier Gian Singh and Narinder Singh decisions, which hold that CrPC Section 482 power can be exercised to quash non‑compoundable offences where the dispute is private and settled, subject to exceptions (heinous offences, offences under special statutes, or those involving public servants). The court held the dispute private, the settlement satisfactory, and allowed the CrL.M.C., quashing all further proceedings against the petitioners in SC No. 788/2020. The decision emphasizes that settlement and the private nature of the dispute can justify quashing, while guarding against abuse in serious public-interest offences.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)Section 143 IPCSection 147 IPCSection 148 IPCSection 341 IPCSection 323 IPCSection 324 IPCSection 308 IPCSection 149 IPCSection 307 IPCCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Power under section 482 CrPC to quash non‑compoundable offences where the dispute is private and the parties have settled (as per Laxmi Narayan and Narinder Singh lines)
  • Not to exercise power for heinous/serious offences (e.g., murder, rape, dacoity) or for offences under special statutes or against public servants
  • The High Court may examine the nature of the charge (e.g., inclusion of Section 307 IPC) to determine whether quashing is appropriate, based on evidence amassed after investigation
  • Antecedents and conduct of the accused and the circumstances of the settlement should be considered

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants submit that the parties have settled their dispute and do not wish to pursue the prosecution. They rely on the affidavits of the victims in support of the settlement. They contend that the private nature of the dispute justifies quashing, citing the settled law under Section 482 CrPC that allows quashing of non‑compoundable offences when the entire dispute has been resolved between the parties.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about quashing solely on settlement but acknowledged that the dispute had been settled; the victims’ affidavits indicated no objection. The court was urged to consider public interest and the seriousness of the offences, balancing settlement with the need to deter serious crime.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
State of Madhya Pradesh v Laxmi Narayan and Others2019 (5) SCC 688PositiveCited as the guiding principle that non‑compoundable offences can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC when disputes are private and settled, subject to exceptions.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another2012 (10) SCC 303PositiveCited as an earlier authority on quashing non‑compoundable offences; forms part of the jurisprudence relied upon by Laxmi Narayan.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another2014 (6) SCC 466PositiveCited by Laxmi Narayan as part of the jurisprudence on quashing under CrPC 482.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Abhijith.K & Akshay Prakash.V.K v. State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 16TH BHADRA, 1945 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 6058 OF 2023 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT SC 788/2020 OF ADDITIONAL ``` ``` DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - IV, KOZHIKODE / III ADDITIONAL MACT, KOZHIKODE ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` 1ABHIJITH.K, AGED 24 YEARS S/O SREEKUMAR.V.K, KOMATH HOUSE, IRINGANNOOR P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN - 673505 2AKSHAY PRAKASH.V.K, AGED 25 YEARS S/O JAYAPRAKASH, VADAKKE KOMATH HOUSE, KECHERI P.O, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN - 673502 BY ADVS. RAMEES P.K. RAJESH KUMAR R. M.B.SHYNI ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031 2RAHUL, AGED 30 YEARS S/O RAJEEVAN, KALLANANDIYIL HOUSE, ANIYARAM P.O, CHOKLI, KANNUR DISTRICT ., PIN - 670672 3AKSHAY, AGED 25 YEARS S/O KUMARAN, THACHARAKKAL HOUSE, IRINGANNOOR P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN - 673505 4SIVAPRAKASH, AGED 24 YEARS ``` Crl.M.C No. 6058 of 2023 -2- ``` S/O PRAKASHAN, PALLIYIL THAZHEKUTTI HOUSE, IRINGANNOOR P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN - 673505 ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` SEENA. C PP,V.R ANIL KUMAR ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` -3- Crl.M.C No. 6058 of 2023 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** ====================================================== Crl.M.C No.6058 of 2023 ============================================================= Dated this the 7[th] day of September, 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 petitioners are the accused in SC No.788 of 2020 of the Additional District and Sessions Court -III, Kozhikode, arising from Crime No.62 off 2018 of Nadapuram Police Station, Kozhikode district. The above case is charge sheeted alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 308 read with 149 IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused assaulted the victims after forming themselves into an unlawful assembly. 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 -4- Crl.M.C No. 6058 of 2023 submitted that the matter is settled and the victims 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/s 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 -5- Crl.M.C No. 6058 of 2023 _**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_ -6- Crl.M.C No. 6058 of 2023 _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 that there is a settlement / ground 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.”_ -7- Crl.M.C No. 6058 of 2023 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 alone in SC No.788 of 2020 of the Additional District and Sessions Court -III, Kozhikode, arising from Crime No.62 off 2018 of Nadapuram Police Station, Kozhikode district are quashed. _sd/-_ **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** das -8- Crl.M.C No. 6058 of 2023 ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6058/2023`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ``` ``` Annexure -1COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO: 62/2018 OF NADAPURAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT ``` ``` Annexure -2A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 6TH DAY OF JULY 2023 Annexure -3A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 6TH DAY OF JULY 2023 ``` ``` Annexure -4A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 6TH DAY OF JULY 2023 ```