Adarsh; Arunkumar; SREENATH@APPUL v. State of Kerala

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V TUESDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 23RD JYAISHTA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 3565 OF 2023`** # **`AGAINST THE SC NO.319/2020 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), KOLLAM`** ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3 :`** ``` 1ADARSH AGED28YEARS S/O.ASHTAPALAN,NATHANDANGUHOUSE, PERUKULAMNAGARIL,PUNTHALATHAZHAMCHERIYIL, - VADAKEVILAVILLAGE,KOLLAMDISTRICT,PIN691020 2ARUNKUMAR AGED23YEARS S/O.UDAYAN,AJITHABHAVAN,PUNTHALATHAZHAMCHERIYIL, NAMBITESHERITHEKKETHIL,PALLAVINAGAR, - KOLLAMDISTRICT,PIN691020 3SREENATH@APPUL AGED23YEARS S/O.ASHOKAN,KALARITHEKKETHILHOUSE,VALIYAMADOM, KANIMECHERIYIL,KILIKOLLOORVILLAGE, - KOLLAMDISTRICT,PIN691020 BYADVS. BIJU.C.ABRAHAM THOMASC.ABRAHAM ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/CW1 :`** ``` 1STATEOFKERALA REPRESENTEDPUBLICPROSECUTOR, – HIGHCOURTOFKERALA,ERNAKULAM,PIN682031 2SANTHOSH AGED42YEARS,S/O.SREEDHARAN, PALLIVILAVEEDU,ULLASNAGAR, PUTHALATHAZHAM,VADAKKEVILAVILLAGE, ``` Crl.M.C No.3565 of 2023 2 ``` KOLLAMNOWRESIDINGATSIVANAGAR-109-B, UTHARABHAVAN,PUNTHALATHAZHAM, – VADAKKEVILAVILLAGE,KOLLAM,PIN691020 ``` ``` BYADVPUBLICPROSECUTOR ``` ``` SRITRRENJITH,SRPP ``` ``` THISCRIMINALMISC.CASEHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON 13.06.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYPASSEDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` Crl.M.C No.3565 of 2023 3 ## **ORDER** This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioners herein have been arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.1204 of 2018 of the Eravipuram Police Station. In the aforesaid case, they are accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 506(ii), 324 and 307 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 2. The crux of the prosecution allegation is that on 13.12.2018, at about 7 pm, the accused in furtherance of their common intention, inflicted multiple cut injuries on the scalp and other vital parts of the body of the informant and thereby attempted to murder him. 3. Sri. Biju C. Abraham, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the parties have managed to settle their entire disputes, and they are living in peace and harmony. Reliance is placed on Annexure-3 affidavit sworn to by the party respondent to substantiate his contention. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the contentions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Relying on the law laid down by the Apex Court in **State of M.P. v. Laxmi** Crl.M.C No.3565 of 2023 4 **Narayan,[1]** it is submitted that grave offences such as one under Section 307 and under Section 27 of the Arms Act cannot fittingly be quashed by invoking the powers u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. based on a purported settlement. 5. I have considered the submissions and have gone through the records. 6. In **Laxmi Narayan (supra),** a three-judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has summarised the law as laid down in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab[2]** , **Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab[3]** , **State of Rajasthan v. Shambhu Kewat[4]** , **State of M.P. v. Deepak[5] , State of M.P. v. Manish[6]** , **J. Ramesh Kamath v. Mohana Kurup[7]** ; **State of M.P. v. Rajveer Singh[8]** , **Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat[9] , State of M.P. v. Kalyan Singh[10] and State of M.P. v. Dhruv Gurjar[11]** . It was laid down as under: 15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of > 1 [(2019) 5 SCC 688] > 2 (2012) 10 SCC 303 > 3 2014 (6) SCC 466 > 4 (2014) 4 SCC 149 > 5 (2014) 10 SCC 285 > 6 (2015) 8 SCC 307 > 7 2016) 12 SCC 179 > 8 (2016) 12 SCC 471 > 9 (2017) 9 SCC 641 > 10 (2019) 4 SCC 268 > 11 (2019) 5 SCC 570] Crl.M.C No.3565 of 2023 5 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 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 Crl.M.C No.3565 of 2023 6 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 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 Crl.M.C No.3565 of 2023 7 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. It has been held by the Apex Court that offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crimes 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. It was held that it would be open to this Court to examine whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or whether 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 this Court to go by the nature of the injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, the nature of weapons used, etc. From the wound certificate of Crl.M.C No.3565 of 2023 8 the injured, which is made available by the learned Public Prosecutor, it is clear that serious injuries were inflicted on the vital parts of the body, including the head of the victim. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to quash the proceedings based on a purported settlement. This petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE** NS Crl.M.C No.3565 of 2023 9 ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3565/2023`** ``` PETITIONERANNEXURES: ``` ``` Annexure1 ``` ``` TRUECOPYOFTHEFIRINCRIMENO.1204/2018OF ERAVIPURAMPOLICESTATION ``` ``` Annexure2TRUECOPYOFTHECHARGESHEETINCRIMENO. 1204/2018OFERAVIPURAMPOLICESTATION ``` ``` Annexure3AFFIDAVITSWORNBYTHE2NDRESPONDENTDATED 25/4/2023 ```