Abhilash and others v. State of Kerala

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V FRIDAY, THE 18[ TH ] DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 27TH SRAVANA, 1945`** ``` CRL.MC NO. 5960 OF 2021 ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` 1 ABHILASH AGED 39 YEARS S/O. CHANDRAN, RAJESH BHAVAN, ENIKKARA, KARAKULAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 695 564 2 MANU @ R.ANEESH AGED 32 YEARS S/O. RAVEENDRAN, NANDANAM 1489 PLAVARAMOOLA, VELLAIKADAVU, PULIYARAKONAM P.O, VILAPPIL, PULIYARAKONAM 3 ANOOP B AGED 30 YEARS S/O. BABU B. ANJU PRIYA, KOTTAVILA, MUNDEELA P.O, VELLANAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 695 543 4 ANOOP M.S AGED 32 YEARS S/O. MURALEEDHARAN NAIR, THEKKECHERUKKA VEEDU, KOKOTHAMANGALAM, MUNDEELA P.O, ARUVIKKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT PIN 695 543 5 SHAJEER SL AGED 26 YEARS S/O. SHAHABUDEEN, VALAVI VEEDU, KEEZHIKONAM, NETTAYAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT PIN 695 013 BY ADVS. J.R.PREM NAVAZ J.R SUMEEN S.(K/000187/2012) ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 5960 OF 2021 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PIN 682 031 2 RAJESH AGED 35 YEARS S/O. RAJENDRAN, PULLIKONAM, JAYA BHAVAN, KARAKULAM VILLAGE, KACHANI, NEDUMANGAD TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT PIN 695 541 BY ADV RANJITH E N SRI. VIPIN NARAYAN, SR. PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 5960 OF 2021 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **ORDER** This petition is filed invoking the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for the sake of brevity). 2. The petitioners herein are accused Nos. 1 to 5 in Crime No. 1778 of 2020 of the Aruvikkara Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 450, 395, 294(b), 427, 506(ii) of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 3. The prosecution allegation, as borne out from the records, are: On 25.08.2020 at about 10.30 pm., the petitioners are alleged to have trespassed into the lodge room where the defacto complainant was residing and, by brandishing weapons, took away a sum of Rs.4,500/- and committed mischief causing loss to the tune of Rs. 25,000/-. 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 party respondent in support of their contentions. 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 ``` CRL.MC NO. 5960 OF 2021 ``` ``` 4 ``` 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 inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 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,[ 1 ]** , a three-judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has summarized the law as laid down in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab[ 2 ]** , **Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab[ 3 ]** 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 > 1 (2019) 5 SCC 688 > 2 (2012) 10 SCC 303 > 3 2014 (6) SCC 466 ``` CRL.MC NO. 5960 OF 2021 ``` ``` 5 ``` 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 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 ``` CRL.MC NO. 5960 OF 2021 ``` ``` 6 ``` 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. I find that the parties were referred to mediation by this Court and a settlement was arrived at. A copy of the settlement agreement dated 8.6.2022 is also placed before this Court. Having ``` CRL.MC NO. 5960 OF 2021 ``` ``` 7 ``` carefully analyzed the prayer sought in the light of the principles laid down above and also the nature of the allegations, the gravity of the offence, the severity 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. Though offences under the Arms Act is also incorporated, the incident had not occurred in a notified area. I am of the view that quashing the proceedings 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 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 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings. This petition is allowed. Annexure-A1 FIR in Crime No. 1778 of 2020 of the Aruvikkara Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners are quashed. Sd/- ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE** avs ``` CRL.MC NO. 5960 OF 2021 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5960/2021`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`** ``` Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 1778/2020 OF ARUVIKKARA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 31-10-2021 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ```