High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeCriminal Misc. Case allowed; proceedings quashe...

Abhilash @ Ayudhappura Abhilash v State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:CRL.M.C No. 9266 of 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
Judgment Date
2023-11-20
Court Decision / Holding
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. All further proceedings in CC No.1250/2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Alappuzha arising from Crime No.70/2018 of Alappuzha North Police Station, as against the petitioner alone is quashed.
Final Disposition
Criminal Misc. Case allowed; proceedings quashed against the petitioner Abhilash alone.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Abhilash @ Ayudhappura Abhilash

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
  • Station House Officer, Alappuzha North Police Station
  • Vishnu Vijayan s/o Vijay an, Nediya mpola House, A volokkunnu P.O., Alappuzha

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Suresh Joseph
  • • Vidhu C.
  • • LekhhaMore P.N.

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Public Prosecutor (Smt. MP Prasanth)
  • • Sri.Sanalkumar.B. (for R3 Vishnu Vijayan)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, considers a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C. No. 9266 of 2023) under Section 482 CrPC to quash a criminal proceeding arising from Crime No. 70/2018 of Alappuzha North Police Station. The petitioner, Abhilash alias Ayudhappura Abhilash, is accused in CC No. 1250/2018 for offences under IPC Sections 294(b), 506, 323 read with 34. The core issue is whether the prosecution can be quashed where the parties have settled their dispute and the victim supports the settlement. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter is private in nature and the parties have resolved their differences; the affidavit by the victim corroborates the settlement and shows no opposition to quashing. The Public Prosecutor expresses reservations about quashing solely on settlement but concedes the dispute is settled. The court cites and applies Supreme Court precedents, notably State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) and the lines of Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, to lay down the doctrine: a power under S.482 CrPC can be exercised to quash non‑compoundable offences with overwhelmingly civil character when the entire dispute is resolved, with caveats for heinous/offences or public-interest concerns. After analyzing antecedents, conduct, and the nature of the offences, the court holds the dispute to be private and accepts the settlement, by allowing the Crl.M.C. and quashing the proceedings against the petitioner alone.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of CrPCSections 294(b), 506, 323 read with 34 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Power under Section 482 CrPC to quash non‑compoundable offences where the dispute is private and settled; civil character of disputes arising from private/ family/commercial contexts; not to quash for heinous/serious offences; not to quash for offences under special statutes or involving public servants; whether incorporation of S.307 IPC is merely for form or evidence-based; consideration of antecedents and conduct of the accused

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire dispute is private and has been settled amicably. An affidavit from the victim supports the settlement, and there is no objection to quashing. The petitioner argues that once the dispute is resolved, continuing prosecution would be a futile exercise and defeats the ends of justice. Citing Laxmi Narayan and Narinder Singh, the petition seeks exercise of the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash non‑compoundable offences on the strength of the settlement where the offence is not of a heinous nature and public interest is not affected.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor acknowledges the parties’ settlement but stresses the need for caution, given that the offences are non‑compoundable and could impact public interest. While not opposing the factual settlement, the State advocates a careful application of the law, ensuring that quashing does not undermine criminal justice or permit inappropriate settlements in serious offences. The respondent highlights the need to assess factors such as the nature of injury, the role of the accused, the evidence gathered, and the potential societal impact before exercising CrPC 482 powers.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others2019 (5) SCC 688PositiveProvides the foundational test for quashing non‑compoundable offences in private disputes when the dispute is settled, and the offences are not heinous.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another2012 (10) SCC 303PositiveCited as part of the established framework guiding the exercise of CrPC 482 powers in private settlements.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another2014 (6) SCC 466PositiveAlongside Laxmi Narayan and Gian Singh, forms the reasoning about quashing non‑compoundable offences in private settlements.

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 @ Ayudhappura Abhilash v State of Kerala and Others 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 ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 20[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 29TH KARTHIKA, 1945 ``` ## **`CRL.MC NO. 9266 OF 2023`** ## **`CRIME NO.70/2018 OF ALAPPUZHA NORTH POLICE STATION,`** ## **`Alappuzha`** ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3:`** ``` ABHILASH @ AYUDHAPPURA ABHILASH AGED 38 YEARS S/O AMBEESHAN, KAIMAPARAMBU, THUMPOLY P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688008 BY ADVS. SURESH JOSEPH VIDHU C. LEKHAMOLE P.N. ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - `1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031` - `2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER ALAPPUZHA NORTH POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688001` - `3 VISHNU VIJAYAN S/O VIJAYAN, NEDIYAMPOLA HOUSE, AVLOOKKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688006` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` SRI MP PRASANTH ,PUBLIC PROSECUTOR R3 – BY SRI.SANALKUMAR. B. ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` Crl.M.C.No. No.9266 of 2023 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** **--------------------------------** Crl.M.C. No.9266 of 2023 ## **------------------------------Dated this the 20[th] day of November, 2023 O R D E R** 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 petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.1250/2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Alappuzha arising from Crime No.70/2018 of Alappuzha North Police Station. The above case is charge sheeted alleging offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 506,323 r/w 34 Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused used filthy language and assaulted the victim. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits Crl.M.C.No. No.9266 of 2023 3 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 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 petitioner, 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 Crl.M.C.No. No.9266 of 2023 4 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 **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_ Crl.M.C.No. No.9266 of 2023 5 _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 have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High_ Crl.M.C.No. No.9266 of 2023 6 _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 noncompoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a_ Crl.M.C.No. No.9266 of 2023 7 _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 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 in C.C. No.1250/2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate CourtI, Alappuzha arising from Crime No.70/2018 of 8 Crl.M.C.No. No.9266 of 2023 Alappuzha North Police Station, as against the petitioner alone is quashed. - Sd/ **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE** rmm/20/11/2023 Crl.M.C.No. No.9266 of 2023 9 ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 9266/2023`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1FIR AND FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.70 OF 2018 IN CC NO. 1250 OF 2018 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT-I AT ALAPPUZHA Annexure 2AFFIDAVIT BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ```