Aravindakshan Pillai and Hari Kumar TK v State of Kerala and Others

CRL.MC NO. 9202 OF 2022 1 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **THURSDAY, THE 30[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 9202 OF 2022** **CRIME NO.1198/2017 OF Pandalam Police Station, Pathanamthitta AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 3100/2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS , ADOOR** ## **PETITIONER/S:** 1 ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAI AGED 67 YEARS S/O RAGHAVAN PILLAI, THEKKECHARUVIL VEEDU, KAIPPUZHA, KULANADA P.O., KULANADA VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689503 2 HARI KUMAR T.K AGED 52 YEARS S/O KUTTAPPAN PILLAI, THEKKEKALLUPURATHU VEEDU, MULLAMPUZHA, PANDALAM P.O., PANDALAM VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689501 BY ADVS. MANU RAMACHANDRAN M.KIRANLAL R.RAJESH (VARKALA) SAMEER M NAIR GEETHU KRISHNAN SAILAKSHMI MENON DHANALAKSHMI V.K. ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER POLICE STATION OF PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, CRL.MC NO. 9202 OF 2022 2 PIN - 689501 3 P.K OMANAKUTTAN AGED 57 YEARS S/O K.M KUTTAPPAN NAIR, KOCHILANGANADU VEEDU, KADAMANITTA P.O., NARANGANANM VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689649 4 SALEENA BEEVI AGED 54 YEARS W/O HABEEB RAHMAN, FOUSIA MANSIL, KADAKKAD , PANDLAM PO, KURAMPALA VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA 689501 5 MOLLY THOMAS AGED 54 YEARS W/O THOMASKUTTY, CHERIYAMANGALATHU VEEDU, KOZHUVALLOOR P.O., MULAKUZHA, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT BY ADVS. ANSU VARGHESE No Advocate ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SRI MP PRASANTH, PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.MC NO. 9202 OF 2022 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** **--------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No. 9202 of 2022** **-------------------------------------Dated this the 30[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 petitioners are the accused in CC No. 3100/2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor arising from Crime No. 1198/2017 of Pandalam Police Station. The above case is chargesheeted alleging offence punishable under Secs. 450, 451, 506(i) IPC, under Sec.13 and R.3 r/w 17 and Sec.18A r/w 6A of the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958 and Sec. 3 r/w 9(a) and 9(b) of the Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2012. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused committed cheating and also committed offences under the provisions of CRL.MC NO. 9202 OF 2022 4 Money Lenders Act and Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2012. 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 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, 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 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized the situation in which CRL.MC NO. 9202 OF 2022 5 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 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; CRL.MC NO. 9202 OF 2022 6 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 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 CRL.MC NO. 9202 OF 2022 7 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 CC No. 3100/2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor arising from Crime No. 1198/2017 of Pandalam Police Station are quashed. **Sd/P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** SKS CRL.MC NO. 9202 OF 2022 8 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 9202/2022** PETITIONER ANNEXURES |Annexure A1|THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN| |---|---| ||CRIME NO.1198/2017 OF POLICE STATION OF| ||PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT WHICH IS| ||NOW PENDING AS C.C NO.3100/2017 ON THE| ||FILES OF JFMC, ADOOR| |Annexure A2|THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED| ||01.06.2022 SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT/DE-| ||FACTO COMPLAINANT| |Annexure A3|THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED| ||07.10.2023 EXECUTED BY THE RESPONDENT| ||NO.4/CW2| |Annexure A4|THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED| ||07.10.2023 EXECUTED BY THE RESPONDENT| ||NO.5/CW3|