Criminal Misc. Case No. 2754 of 2022 - Nikhil and others vs State of Kerala

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V MONDAY, THE 24[TH] DAY OF JULY 2023 / 2ND SRAVANA, 1945`** ``` CRL.MCNO.2754OF2022 INSC749/2018OFADDITIONALDISTRICTCOURT&SESSIONSCOURT-II, MANJERI/IIADDITIONALMACT,MANJERI PETITIONERS/ACCUSEDNOS.1TO5: ``` ``` 1NIKHIL AGED27YEARS S/O.NARAYANAN,NOOLATHILHOUSE,AYODYANAGAR, PARAPPANANGADI,MALAPPURAMDISTRICT. 2KUNAMPARAMBILRENJITH AGED28YEARS S/O.VELAYUDHAN,KRINAMPARAMBILHOUSE,KETTUNGAL, - PARAPPANANGADI,MALAPPURAMDISTRICT,PIN676303. 3SABAREESHN.T AGED27YEARS S/O.GANAPATHI,NELLIKKATHODIHOUSE,ULLANAMP.O., - PARAPPANANGADI,MALAPPURAMDISTRICT,PIN676303. 4SARATHKUMARP AGED30YEARS S/O.SIVADASAN,PUNATHILHOUSE,ULLANAMNORTHP.O., - PARAPPANANGADI,MALAPPURAMDISTRICT,,PIN676303. 5SUBASHCHANDRAV AGED23YEARS S/O.GANESHAN,VALLAYILHOUSE,NEDUVAP.O.,AYODYA NAGAR,CHIRAMANGALAM,PARAPPANANGADI,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BYADVK.P.SUDHEER ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:`** ``` 1STATEOFKERALA REPRESENTEDBYITSPUBLICPROSECUTOR,HIGHCOURTOF KERALA,ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-682018. 2STATIONHOUSEOFFICER PARAPPANANGADIPOLICESTATION,PARAPPANANGADI - MALAPPURAMDISTRICT,PIN676303. ``` ``` CRL.MCNO.2754OF2022 ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` 3NUBOOB AGED25YEARS S/O.AOOBACKER,KARUTHEDATHUHOUSE,KOORIYILMOOLA, PAZHASSINAGAR,NEDUVAP.O.,TIRURANGADITALUK, - MALAPPURAMDISTRICT,PIN676303. BYADVS. SRI.J.RAMKUMAR ``` ``` SRI.TRRENJTIH,SR.PP ``` ``` THISCRIMINALMISC.CASEHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON 24.07.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYPASSEDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` ``` CRL.MCNO.2754OF2022 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **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 in SC.No.749 of 2018 on the file of the Additional District & Sessions Judge II, Manjeri. In the said case, they face indictment for having committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 341, 307, 427 r/w 149 of the IPC. 3. The prosecution allegation, as borne out from the records, are as under: On 29.5.2018 at about 10.30 p.m., the petitioners formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and, in the prosecution of their common object, attacked the de facto complainant with an iron rod 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 the affidavit filed by the party respondent to substantiate his contention. 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 de facto complainant/injured/victim and report as to whether the assertion in the ``` CRL.MCNO.2754OF2022 ``` ``` 4 ``` petition and the affidavit 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 raised reservations with regard to the prospect of quashing the present proceedings purely on the basis of the settlement. It is urged that the extant circumstances may not warrant the exercise of the court's inherent jurisdiction, as conferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He would highlight that among the offenses against the petitioners in the Charge, the offense under Section 307 of the IPC also has been included. However, it is fairly submitted that no other transgressions or complaints stand registered against the petitioners hitherto. It is further submitted that the statement of the party respondent has been recorded, and he has unequivocally expressed that he harbors no enduring grievances. 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** > 2 (2012) 10 SCC 303 > 3 2014 (6) SCC 466 > 1 (2019) 5 SCC 688 ``` CRL.MCNO.2754OF2022 ``` ``` 5 ``` **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 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 > 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.MCNO.2754OF2022 ``` ``` 6 ``` 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 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. ``` CRL.MCNO.2754OF2022 ``` ``` 7 ``` 9. In the case on hand, the offenses alleged include Section 307 of the IPC as well. In **Laxmi Narayanan** (supra), the Apex Court has reminded it would be open to this Court to examine whether incorporation of Section 307 of the IPC is there for the sake of it or whether the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which, if proven, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, this Court was required 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. I have gone through the copies of the wound certificates of Nuboob, the victim in the instant case. Annexure-A2 Accident Register cum wound certificate would disclose that the victim had suffered only multiple abrasions on his hands and a lacerated wound on the right temporal region. The injury noted by the doctor cannot be said to be grave warranting incorporation of a charge under Section 307 of the IPC. Furthermore, the petitioners and the party respondent have settled all their disputes and are living in peace and harmony. In that view of the matter, despite the incorporation of Section 307 of the IPC in the Charge, this Court would be well justified in quashing the proceedings recording the settlement **.** The quashing of proceedings on the basis of the settlement will not have any adverse impact on the society and it would only inure to bring about peace and secure the ends of justice. Even otherwise, persisting with the prosecution would be nothing but a waste of time as the prospects of conviction are bleak. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court will be well justified ``` CRL.MCNO.2754OF2022 ``` ``` 8 ``` 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.163 of 2018 of Parappanangadi Police Station and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners as S.C.No.749 of 2018 on the file of the Additional District & Sessions Judge II, Manjeri are quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE** Sru ``` CRL.MCNO.2754OF2022 ``` ``` 9 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2754/2022`** |`PETITIONERS ANNEXURES`|| |---|---| |`ANNEXURE A1`|`TRUE COPY OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORT DATED`| ||`30.5.2018 IN CRIME NO. 163/2018 OF`| ||`PARAPPANANGADI POLICE STATION.`| |`ANNEXURE A2`|`TRUE COPY OF CHARGE IN CRIME NO. 163/2018 OF`| ||`PARAPPANANGADI POLICE STATION.`| |`ANNEXURE A3`|`TRUE COPY OF COMMON JUDGMENT IN S.C. NO.`| ||`99/2019 AND S.C. NO. 227/2019 ON THE FILE OF`| ||`THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, TIRUR.`| |`ANNEXURE A4`|`AFFIDAVIT DATED 4.2.2020 EXECUTED BY THE 3RD`| ||`RESPONDENT.`|