High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed the proceedings; accused discharged fro...

Akshay Paul @ Akshay C P, John Paul, Anson Antony, Manu Antony, Kiran P R and Sebastian Alvin v. State of Kerala and Vishnu Prasad and Rahul C

Case / Petition Number:CRL.M.C. 9299 of 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date
2023-11-22
Court Decision / Holding
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No.496/2023 of Varappuzha Police Station are quashed.
Final Disposition
Quashed the proceedings; accused discharged from further prosecution in Crime No. 496/2023, Varappuzha Police Station, Ernakulam (Kerala). The prosecution is closed in respect of the subject matter of this FIR/charge sheet as per this order.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Akshay Paul @ Akshay C P
  • John Paul
  • Anson Antony
  • Manu Antony
  • Kiran P R
  • Sebastian Alvin

Respondents

  • State of Kerala
  • Vishnu Prasad
  • Rahul C

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • C. J. Varghese Vinu

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sreeja V.
  • • Sharon D Panackal

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C. 9299 of 2023) arises from Crime No. 496/2023 of Varappuzha Police Station, Ernakulam, registered for offences including 143, 147, 341, 323, and 325 r/w 149 IPC, based on allegations that the petitioners formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted the victim, causing grievous hurt. The petitioners seek to invoke the powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings, arguing that the dispute between the parties is private and has been settled amicably, with affidavits from the victims indicating consent to quashing and no objection to ending the prosecution. The Public Prosecutor is cautious because one petitioner has criminal antecedents and the matter involves other cases; however, he concedes that the dispute is settled. The court relies on the Supreme Court’s decisions in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) and the earlier rulings in Gian Singh and Narinder Singh to set out the circumstances in which non-compoundable offences may be quashed on the basis of settlement when the dispute is private in nature. After examining the facts and material on record, the court holds that the dispute is private in nature and that the settlement is genuine; accordingly, the prosecution is quashed and all further proceedings are discontinued. The court also emphasizes that quashing is inappropriate for heinous/public-interest crimes or offences under special statutes, ensuring private settlement does not override public safety.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 CrPCSections 143, 147, 341, 323, 325 r/w 149 IPCSection 320 IPCSection 307 IPCArms ActPrevention of Corruption Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Power under Section 482 CrPC to quash non‑compoundable offences under Section 320 IPC can be exercised in cases with civil/private disputes where the parties have settled.
  • Such power is not to be exercised for heinous/serious offences (murder, rape, dacoity, etc.) or for offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or offences by public servants.
  • Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act are treated as serious and cannot be quashed solely on the basis of settlement; the High Court may examine, during or after investigation, whether a charge under Section 307 IPC is genuinely supported by evidence.
  • When quashing pertains to private offences, the High Court should also consider factors such as the accused’s antecedents and conduct (e.g., whether the accused was absconding) and how the settlement was achieved.
  • The court should harmonize the above principles with the evidence at hand and the stage of proceedings (investigation vs. post-charge/trial).

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that the parties have settled the dispute and do not wish to continue the prosecution. They rely on affidavits from the victims supporting quashing and contends that the matter is private in nature and the settlement should be accepted under the broad framework laid down in Laxmi Narayan and related cases. They argue that the quashing is proper where the dispute is civil in nature and the parties have resolved their differences, especially where there is no serious public interest involved and the offences are non‑core to public welfare.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor acknowledges the settlement but raises concerns due to the 2nd petitioner’s criminal antecedents and the presence of potential additional cases. He submits that while the dispute is settled, quashing cannot be ordered solely on the basis of compromise, particularly for offences indicated in the FIR. The Prosecutor emphasizes cautious application of the settled‑dispute principle, ensuring it does not erode public interest or enable evasion of accountability in private/internal crimes, and notes the need to assess the nature of the offence, evidence, and the stage of proceedings.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others2019 (5) SCC 688PositiveCited as the controlling principle for permitting quashing of non‑compoundable offences in private disputes when settlements have been reached and the offences are private in nature.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another2012 (10) SCC 303PositiveCited for the framework on quashing non‑compoundable offences and balancing private settlements with public interest.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another2014 (6) SCC 466PositiveCited for cautions and limitations regarding private settlements and the assessment of the evidence, especially when dealing with potential serious/offences.

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 Akshay Paul @ Akshay C P, John Paul, Anson Antony, Manu Antony, Kiran P R and Sebastian Alvin v. State of Kerala and Vishnu Prasad and Rahul C 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 WEDNESDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 9299 OF 2023** ## **CRIME NO.496/2023 OF Varappuzha Police Station, Ernakulam** ## **- PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO 1 6:** 1 AKSHAY PAUL @ AKSHAY C P AGED 27 YEARS S/O PAUL, CHULLIKADU HOUSE THEVARKAD VARAPUZHA PANCHAYATH VARAPUZHA P.O VARAPUZHA VILLAGE , PARAVOOR THALUK, PIN - 683517 2 JOHN PAUL AGED 38 YEARS S/O JOHN, KURISHINGAL HOUSE KOTTUVALLY , KAITHARAM P.O KOTTUVALLY VILLAGE , PARAVOOR THALUK, PIN - 683519 3 ANSON ANTONY AGED 36 YEARS S/O K I ANTHAPPAN , KURISHINGAL HOUSE KOTTUVALLY , KAITHARAM P.O KOTTUVALLY VILLAGE, PARAVOOR THALUK, PIN - 683519 4 MANU ANTONY AGED 30 YEARS S/O CHARLEY M.V MALIYEKKAL HOUSE THEVARKAD VARAPUZHA P.O PARAVOOR TALUK, PIN - 683517 5 KIRAN P R AGED 25 YEARS S/O RENJU PADANNEL PRAMBU HOUSE KOTTUVALLY , KAITHARAM P.O KOTTUVALLY VILLAGE PARAVOOR TALUK, PIN - 683519 6 SEBASTIAN ALVIN AGED 24 YEARS S/O ANTONY KALLOOR HOUSE KOTTUVALLY P.O KAITHARAM PARAVOOR TALUK ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683519 BY ADV C.J.VARGHESE VINU ## **RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT (CW1) & CW2:** 1 STATE OF KERALA Crl.M.C.No.9299 of 2023 2 REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA (ON BEHALF OF THE SHO OF POLICE, VARAPUZHA POLICE STATION ), PIN - 682031 2 VISHNU PRASAD AGED 26 YEARS S/O CHANDRAN POZHALIPARAMBIL HOUSE MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK P.O THURAVU VILLAGE KANJOOR DESOM THRISSUR PIN 680301, PIN - 680301 3 RAHUL C AGED 27 YEARS S/O CHANDRAN AGED 27 YEARS POZHALIPARAMBIL HOUSE MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK P.O THURAVU VILLAGE KANJOOR DESOM THRISSUR, PIN 680301. BY ADVS. SRI.SREEJA V., PP SRI.SHARON D PANACKAL THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: KAL Crl.M.C.No.9299 of 2023 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** **------------------------------** ## **Crl.M.C.No.9299 of 2023** **---------------------------------------------Dated this the 22[nd] day of November, 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 Crime No.496/2023 of Varappuzha Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 323, 325 r/w 149 IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and assaulted the victim and the victim sustained grievous hurt. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties have settled their dispute and do not wish Crl.M.C.No.9299 of 2023 4 to pursue the prosecution proceedings. The counsel relies on the affidavits filed by the victims in support of his contention. The counsel appearing for the victims also submitted that the matter is settled and the victims have no objection in quashing the prosecution. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the 2[nd] petitioner has got criminal antecedents and he is involved in another case also. The 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, victims 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 Crl.M.C.No.9299 of 2023 5 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 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_ Crl.M.C.No.9299 of 2023 6 _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 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 serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement / compromise between the_ Crl.M.C.No.9299 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.”_ 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 in Crime No.496/2023 of Varappuzha Police Station are quashed. Sd/- DM **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** Crl.M.C.No.9299 of 2023 8 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 9299/2023** PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 ANNEXURE A1:- CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR AND FIS OF CRIME NO 496/2023 OF VARAPUZHA POLICE STATION ANNEXURE A2 ANNEXURE A2 :- AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY 2ND RESPONDENT ANNEXURE A3 ANNEXURE A3 :- AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY 3RD RESPONDENT RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE