High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed

Abhilash and others v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:CRL.M.C NO. 5409 OF 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date
2023-10-31
Court Decision / Holding
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. All further proceedings in CC No.654 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Angamaly, arising from Crime No.1152 of 2019 of Nedumbassery Police Station, are quashed.
Final Disposition
Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Abhilash
  • Sunni Mon @ Sunil
  • Gireesh
  • Mohanam
  • Manoj

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
  • The Station House Officer Nedumbassery Airport Police Station, Nedumbassery
  • Davis

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Adv. Binoy Vasudevan

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri Hrithw C.S., Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C. No. 5409/2023) arises from CC No. 654 of 2020, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Angamaly, in relation to Crime No. 1152 of 2019 of Nedumbassery Police Station, Ernakulam. The petitioners—Abhilash, Sunil Mon alias Sunil, Gireesh, Mohanan and Manoj—are accused of offences under sections 323, 341, 294(b) and 506 read with 34 IPC. The accused move under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the ongoing prosecution, contending that the parties have resolved their disputes and do not wish to pursue the case further. The petition is supported by the victim’s affidavit, with the victim’s side also stating the matter is settled and has no objection to quashing. The Public Prosecutor, while noting reservations about quashing solely on the basis of a settlement, concedes that the matter is settled between the parties. The court considers the settled private nature of the dispute and examines the governing doctrine under Section 482 CrPC, as elaborated by the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019 (5) SCC 688), and the earlier Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh cases. The court ultimately holds that the dispute is private in nature, the settlement is genuine, and quashing is appropriate. Consequently, all further proceedings in CC No. 654/2020 are quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)Section 320 IPCSection 307 IPCSection 34 IPCSection 323 IPCSection 341 IPCSection 294(b) IPCSection 506 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Power under Section 482 CrPC to quash non‑compoundable offences in private disputes where the parties have settled; such power is not to be exercised for heinous/serious offences or offences under special statutes; offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise; the High Court may consider the antecedents and conduct of the accused; the decision must harmonize the settled position in Laxmi Narayan with the factual matrix.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that the dispute among the parties has been settled and they do not wish to pursue the prosecution. The affidavit of the victim supports this contention; the victim states the matter is settled and has no objection to quashing. The law under Section 482 CrPC, as developed in Laxmi Narayan and related decisions (Gian Singh, Narinder Singh), shows that private, non‑compoundable offences arising from civil/private disputes can be quashed when there is a settlement and the public interest is not offended.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor expresses reservations about quashing solely on the basis of a settlement, emphasizing the need to assess the nature and gravity of the offences. However, he concedes that the matter is settled. The State contends that the court must ensure that the settlement is genuine and that the offences are not of a type that should not be quashed under the settled constitutional jurisprudence.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others2019 (5) SCC 688PositiveCited as the leading authority for exercising 482 CrPC to quash non‑compoundable offences where the dispute is private and settled; the judgment outlines the conditions and limits of such quashing.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another2012 (10) SCC 303PositiveCited as part of the legal framework discussed in Laxmi Narayan; supports the principle that private settlements may be considered in 482 CrPC quashing discussions.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another2014 (6) SCC 466PositiveCited to corroborate the doctrinal development on quashing private disputes under 482 CrPC when the settlement is genuine.

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 Abhilash and others 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 ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 31[ST] DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 9TH KARTHIKA, 1945 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 5409 OF 2023 ``` # **`CRIME NO.1152/2019 OF NEDUMBASSERY POLICE STATION,`** ## **`Ernakulam`** ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 654/2020 OF JUDICIAL FIRST ``` ``` CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ANGAMALY ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** - `1 ABHILASH, AGED 39 YEARS S/O.LAKSHMANA KURUP, AGED 39 YEARS, CHOVVODATH HOUSE, NEAR SREE KRISHNA TEMPLE, PERUMBALAM (PO), ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,, PIN - 688570` - `2 SUNI MON @ SUNIL, AGED 44 YEARS S/O.SUBRAHMANIAN AGED 44 YEARS, KANDATHIL HOUSE, KUTHIATHODE (PO) ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688533` - `3 GIREESH, AGED 49 YEARS S/O.KUTTAPPAN, AGED 49 YEARS, KIZHAKKEMANTRA HOUSE, EDAYALUMKARA, VECHOOR (PO), KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686144` - `4 MOHANAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 44 YEARS, KRISHNA HOUSE, OORAPPADAM, POLPULLY (PO), CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678101` - `5 MANOJ, AGED 53 YEARS S/O.DAMODARAN, AGED 53 YEARS, KUTTASSERI HOUSE, NEAR VETTUKUNNATHUKAVU, KARUVANNUR (PO), THRISSUR DISTRICRT, PIN - 678101` ``` BY ADV BINOY VASUDEVAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** - `1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031` - `2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER NEDUMBASSERY AIRPORT POLICE STATION, NEDUMBASSERY` -2- Crl.M.C No. 5409 of 2023 ``` P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686585 3DAVIS KUTTIKKADAN HOUSE, PERINGANAM (PO), THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680686 ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` SRI HRITHWIK C.S, PP ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` -3- Crl.M.C No. 5409 of 2023 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** ====================================================== Crl.M.C No.5409 of 2023 ============================================================= Dated this the 31[st] day of October, 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. Petitioners are the accused in CC No.654 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Angamaly, arising from Crime No.1152 of 2019 of Nedumbassery police station, Ernakulam. The above case is charge sheeted alleging offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 294(b) and 506 read with 34 IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused wrongfully confined the victim and assaulted the victim using filthy language and also criminally intimidated the victim. 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 victim in support of his contention. The counsel appearing for the victim also -4- Crl.M.C No. 5409 of 2023 submitted that the matter is settled and the victim 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 petitioners, 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 -5- Crl.M.C No. 5409 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_ -6- Crl.M.C No. 5409 of 2023 _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_ -7- Crl.M.C No. 5409 of 2023 _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. Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous case is allowed. All further proceedings as against the petitioners in CC No.654 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Angamaly, arising from Crime No.1152 of 2019 of Nedumbassery police station, Ernakulam, are quashed. sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** das -8- Crl.M.C No. 5409 of 2023 ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5409/2023`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure1CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 1152 OF 2019 OF NEDUMBASSERY AIRPORT POLICE STATION Annexure2CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN C.C.NO.654/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ANGAMALY Annexure3THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 01.07.2023 ```