ANANTHU RAJ & OTHERS v. THE STATE OF KERALA & OTHERS

## **`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. 4199 OF 2023 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTCC 275/2013 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, KOLLAM`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` 1 ANANTHU RAJ AGED 30 YEARS S/O. RAJU RESIDING AT NIRMALA VILASAM, AAKOLIL CHERY, NEDAJI NAGAR - 38, ERAVIPURAM VILLAGE, ERAVIPURAM P.O, KOLLAM, PIN - 691011 ``` ``` 2 SHAMNATH AGED 30 YEARS S/O. SHOUKATH RESIDING AT S. R. MANZIL, SARAYU NAGAR - 49, AAKOLIL CHERY, NEDAJI NAGAR - 38, ERAVIPURAM VILLAGE, ERAVIPURAM P.O, KOLLAM, PIN - 691011 ``` ``` 3 VIMAL KUMAR AGED 29 YEARS S/O. VIJAYA KUMAR RESIDING AT SURYA THODIYIL, AAKOLIL CHERY, NEDAJI NAGAR - 38, ERAVIPURAM VILLAGE, ERAVIPURAM P.O, KOLLAM, PIN - 691011 ``` ``` 4 MUHAMMED BASHA SHAJAHAN AGED 31 YEARS S/O. SHAJAHAN RESIDING AT SHA COTTAGE, AAKOLIL NAGAR - 7, AAKOLIL CHERY, NEDAJI NAGAR - 38, ERAVIPURAM VILLAGE, ERAVIPURAM P.O, KOLLAM, PIN - 691011 5 MUHAMMED SHA AGED 29 YEARS S/O. SHAJAHAN RESIDING AT SHA COTTAGE, AAKOLIL NAGAR - 7, AAKOLIL CHERY, NEDAJI NAGAR - 38, ERAVIPURAM VILLAGE, ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 4199 OF 2023 ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` ERAVIPURAM P.O, KOLLAM, PIN - 691011 6 SANU AGED 29 YEARS S/O. KUMAR RESIDING AT NEDIYAZIKAM VEEDU, VALLATHUNGAL, AAKOLIL CHERY, NEDAJI NAGAR, ERAVIPURAM VILLAGE, ERAVIPURAM P.O, KOLLAM, PIN - 691011 ``` ``` 7 AKHIL BABU AGED 30 YEARS S/O. BABU RESIDING AT PANTHENTAZHIKAM VEEDU, VALLATHUNGAL, KESAVA NAGAR, ERAVIPURAM VILLAGE, ERAVIPURAM P.O, KOLLAM, PIN - 691011 ``` ``` 8 ANU CHANDRAN AGED 30 YEARS S/O. RAMACHANDRAN RESIDING AT VELIYIL PUTHEN VEEDU, AAKOLIL CHERY, NEDAJI NAGAR, ERAVIPURAM VILLAGE, ERAVIPURAM P.O, KOLLAM, PIN - 691011 ``` ``` BY ADV S.SREEKUMAR (KOLLAM) ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** - `1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031` ``` 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 ``` ``` 3 BIPINDAS AGED 32 YEARS S/O. MOHANDAS RESIDING AT MOOLEVAYALIL VEEDU, VALATHUNGAL CHERY, ERAVIPURAM VILLAGE, ERAVIPURAM P.O, KOLLAM, PIN - 691011 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 4199 OF 2023 ``` ``` 3 ``` ``` 4 VISHNU CHANDRAN AGED 32 YEARS S/O. CHANDRAN RESIDING AT THODIYIL VEEDU, NEDAJI NAGAR, ERAVIPURAM VILLAGE, ERAVIPURAM P.O, KOLLAM, PIN - 691011 ``` ``` SRI PRASHANTH PP ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 4199 OF 2023 ``` ``` 4 ``` ## **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 the accused Nos. 1 to 8 in CC.No.275 of 2013 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Kollam. In the said case, they are accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 294 (b), 323, 506(i) r/w Section 149 of the IPC. 3. The prosecution allegation, as borne out from the records, are as under: On 18.12.2012 at about 5 p.m., the petitioners are alleged to have formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and his friend and attacked them, causing injuries. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the parties have settled their disputes and they are not desirous of pursuing the prosecution proceedings. Reliance is placed on Annexures - A3 and A4 affidavits filed by respondents 3 and 4 to substantiate his contention. ``` CRL.MC NO. 4199 OF 2023 ``` ``` 5 ``` According to the learned counsel, if the proceedings are terminated, recording the amicable settlement, the parties can embark upon their future paths in an atmosphere of tranquility and mutual respect. 5. When the matter had come up for admission, this court had directed the investigating officer concerned to record the statement of the defacto complainant/injured/victims and report as to whether the assertion in the petition and the affidavits filed in support that entire disputes have been resolved between the parties concerned is true and genuine. The investigating officer was also directed to report as to whether the petitioners are persons with criminal antecedents and whether there is any other impediment in terminating the criminal proceedings. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor has expressed reservations about quashing the proceedings based solely on 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 statements of the party respondents have been recorded, and they have unequivocally stated that they do not have any lasting grievances. ``` CRL.MC NO. 4199 OF 2023 ``` ``` 6 ``` 7. I have considered the submissions and have gone through the records. 8. In **State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan,[ 1 ]** , 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 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 - 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.MC NO. 4199 OF 2023 ``` ``` 7 ``` - 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 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 ``` CRL.MC NO. 4199 OF 2023 ``` ``` 8 ``` 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. 9. Having carefully analyzed the nature of the allegations, the gravity of the offense, the severity of injuries inflicted, the antecedents of the petitioners, 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. In fact, it would only serve to bring about peace and secure the ends of justice. Furthermore, persisting with the prosecution would be nothing but a waste of time, as the prospects of conviction are bleak. Having considered all of the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court would be ``` CRL.MC NO. 4199 OF 2023 ``` ``` 9 ``` well justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings. Resultantly, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A2 Final Report in Crime No. 1950/2012 of Eravippuram Police Station and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners as C.C.No.275/2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Kollam, are quashed. ## **Sd/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **JUDGE** ``` avs ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 4199 OF 2023 ``` ``` 10 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4199/2023`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`** ``` Annexure A1 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 1950 OF 2012 DATED 20.12.2012 OF ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION ``` ``` Annexure A2 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE IN C.C. 275/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - II KOLLAM ``` ``` Annexure A3 ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT DATED 25TH MAY 2023 HAS BEEN SWORN BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT ``` ``` Annexure A4 ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT DATED 25TH MAY 2023 HAS BEEN SWORN BY THE FORTH RESPONDENT BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT ```