High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed: All further proceedings in CC 820/2019...

Ashik and Grithukrishna Sagar v. State of Kerala and Narakkal Police Station and others

Case / Petition Number:CRL. M.C. NO.9251 OF 2023
Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date
2023-11-21
Court Decision / Holding
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed; all further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C. No.820/2019 arising from Crime No.1334/2018 are quashed.
Final Disposition
Quashed: All further proceedings in CC 820/2019 arising from Crime No.1334/2018 Narakkal Police Station, Ernakulam are quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Ashik (Aged 23) S/o. Gopy
  • Grithukrishna Sagar (Aged 23) S/o. Sagar

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
  • Sub Inspector of Police, Narakkal Police Station, Ernakulam
  • Benhur S/o. Donal, Narakkal
  • Godwin S/o. Antony, Narakkal
  • Agragami (Aged 25) S/o. Unnikrishnan, Pallippuram
  • Aleesh S/o. Santhosh, Elamkunnapuzha
  • Salman S/o. Muhammed, Edavanakad

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Adv P.V.Vibin

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Smt Sreeja V, PP
  • • Smt. Pooja P.S

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 CrPC challenges the continuation of proceedings in C.C. No. 820/2019, arising from Crime No.1334/2018 of Narakkal Police Station, Ernakulam. The petitioners, Ashik and Grithukrishna Sagar, are accused of offences including 341, 323, 324, 294 and 326 IPC read with 34. The prosecution case alleges wrongful confinement and assault resulting in grievous hurt. The petition contends that the dispute has been settled between the parties and they do not wish to pursue the prosecution. The petitioners rely on affidavits filed by the victims in support of quashing and submit that there is no ongoing public interest requiring continuation. The Public Prosecutor, while not rejecting the settlement, expresses reservations about quashing solely on the basis of a private agreement. The court, after considering submissions and records, invokes the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) regarding the use of 482 CrPC to quash non‑compoundable offences where the dispute is civil and resolved. It also notes the reasoning in Gian Singh and Narinder Singh. Finding the dispute to be private in nature and the settlement acceptable, the court allows the M.C. and quashes all further proceedings in CC 820/2019. The order is pronounced by Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Section 320 of IPCSections 341, 323, 324, 294 and 326 r/w 34 IPCSection 307 IPCArms Act (mentioned)Prevention of Corruption Act (mentioned)Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Power under Section 482 CrPC to quash non‑compoundable offences can be exercised when the dispute is overwhelmingly civil and resolved between the parties (private nature).
  • Such power is not to be exercised for heinous and serious offences (e.g., murder, rape, dacoity) or offences under special statutes or involving public servants.
  • Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act would fall in the category of serious offences and cannot be quashed solely on settlement; High Court may examine the factual matrix after investigation to see if charge under S.307 IPC is warranted.
  • While exercising 482 CrPC, antecedents and conduct of the accused (e.g., absconding) may influence the decision.
  • If the matter is still under investigation, the exercise is not permissible; settlement considerations are to be harmonized with the broader law and public interest.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that the dispute is purely private and civil in nature, and the victims themselves support quashing by affidavits. They contend that the offences are non‑compoundable, yet the entire dispute has been resolved and there is no public interest requiring continued prosecution. They rely on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) and on Gian Singh and Narinder Singh to justify exercise of Section 482 CrPC to quash non‑compoundable offences in cases where a settlement resolves all issues. The petitioners emphasize antecedents and conduct of the accused and argue settlement should be respected to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to preserve social harmony, while balancing privacy and restorative justice.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor acknowledges the settlement but cautions against quashing solely on the basis of a private compromise, citing public interest and the rule of law. He notes that the offences involve confinement and grievous hurt and must be weighed against the need to deter crime. While conceding settlement, he urges the court to apply the Supreme Court principles in Laxmi Narayan, Gian Singh, and Narinder Singh, ensuring that the case does not fall within a category where quashing would undermine public interest. He further points out that quashing is not appropriate for serious offences (e.g., under S.307 IPC or the Arms Act) or for offences under special statutes. The prosecutor asks the court to examine the evidence, the nature of injuries, and the stage of investigation before deciding to quash.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others2019 (5) SCC 688PositiveCited as the controlling principle for quashing non‑compoundable offences under 482 CrPC where the dispute is civil and resolved.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another2012 (10) SCC 303PositiveCited as part of the chain of guidance relied upon by Laxmi Narayan regarding the exercise of 482 CrPC in quashing non‑compoundable offences.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another2014 (6) SCC 466PositiveCited as authority informing the scope and limits of quashing under 482 CrPC in the context of non‑compoundable 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 Ashik and Grithukrishna Sagar v. State of Kerala and Narakkal Police Station 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 ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 30TH KARTHIKA, 1945 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 9251 OF 2023 ``` ``` CRIME NO.1334/2018 OF NARAKKAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 820/2019 OF TEMPORARY JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, NJARAKKAL ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2:`** - **`1 ASHIK AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. GOPY, POYYAKKARA HOUSE, KOVILAKATHUM KADAVU, PALLIPPURAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683515`** - **`2 GRITHUKRISHNA SAGAR, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. SAGAR, CHOLAKADAVIL HOUSE, KOVILAKATHUM KADAVU, PALLIPPURAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683515`** ``` BY ADV P.V.VIBIN ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANTS:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031`** - **`2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NARAKKAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM,PIN - 682505`** - **`3 BENHUR S/O. DONAL, CHULLIKATTU HOUSE, PERUMPILLY, NARAKKAL, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682505`** - **`4 GODWIN AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. ANTONY, VATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANJANAKAD, NARAKKAL, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682505`** - **`5 AGRAGAMI`** ``` CRL. M.C. NO.9251 OF 2023 ``` 2 ``` AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. UNNIKRISHNAN, KANNATTUSSERY HOUSE, CHERAI, PALLIPURAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683515 ``` - **`6 ALEESH`** ``` AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. SANTHOSH, ANCHALASSERY HOUSE, ELAMKUNNAPUZHA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682503 ``` - **`7 SALMAN`** ``` AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED, VALIYEDATH HOUSE, EDAVANAKAD VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682502 ``` ``` BY ADV. ``` ``` SMT SREEJA V, PP SMT. POOJA P.S ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 3 ``` CRL. M.C. NO.9251 OF 2023 ``` **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.9251 of 2023 --------------------------------------Dated this the 21[st ] 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 C.C. No.820/2019 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Narakkal, arising from Crime No.1334/2018 of Narakkal Police Station, Ernakulam. The above case is charge sheeted against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 294 and 326 r/w 34 of IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused ``` CRL. M.C. NO.9251 OF 2023 ``` 4 persons wrongfully confined the victims and assaulted them and the victims sustain grievous hurt. 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 5 ``` CRL. M.C. NO.9251 OF 2023 ``` has also gone through the records including the affidavit 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 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 ``` CRL. M.C. NO.9251 OF 2023 ``` 6 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; 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 ``` CRL. M.C. NO.9251 OF 2023 ``` 7 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 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 8 ``` CRL. M.C. NO.9251 OF 2023 ``` 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 C.C. No.820/2019 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Narakkal, arising from Crime No.1334/2018 of Narakkal Police Station, Ernakulam are quashed. Sd/- nvj ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** ``` CRL. M.C. NO.9251 OF 2023 ``` 9 ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 9251/2023`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ``` ``` ANNEXURE A1CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 1334/2018 OF NARAKKAL POLICE STATION ANNEXURE A2TRUE COPY OF THE FIS AND CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO. 1334/2018 OF NARAKKAL POLICE STATION ANNEXURE A3AFFIDAVIT DATED 19.09.2023 SWORN TO BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ANNEXURE A4AFFIDAVIT DATED 19.09.2023 SWORN TO BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT ANNEXURE A5AFFIDAVIT DATED 19.09.2023 SWORN TO BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT ANNEXURE A6AFFIDAVIT DATED 19.09.2023 SWORN TO BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT ANNEXURE A7AFFIDAVIT DATED 19.09.2023 SWORN TO BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT ``` RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS :NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE