High Court of KeralaSingle JudgePetitions allowed; quashing of proceedings in C...

Criminal Miscellaneous Case Nos. 10267 of 2023 and 10015 of 2023 (Common Order)

Case / Petition Number:CRL.MC NO. 10267 OF 2023; CRL.MC NO. 10015 OF 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date
2023-12-13
Court Decision / Holding
Common Order: Crl.M.C. Nos. 10267/2023 and 10015/2023 allowed; the further proceedings in CC 783/2021 and SC 868/2021 are quashed, as the dispute is private, settled, and does not involve grave public interest; the proceedings are set aside in the light of the judgments cited (Laxmi Narayan, Gian Singh, Narinder Singh).
Final Disposition
Petitions allowed; quashing of proceedings in CC 783/2021 and SC 868/2021 against the petitioners.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Bibin
  • Shehin

Respondents

  • State of Kerala
  • Shajan
  • Edwin
  • Anson
  • Sabareesh

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Adv Jithin Babu A

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala (Sri MP Prasanth)
  • • Sri Arun Samuel

Case Synopsis & Summary

These two Criminal Miscellaneous Cases under Section 482 CrPC arise from two distinct criminal streams: CC No. 783/2021 pending in the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakuda (Crime No. 668/2020, Kattoor Police Station) and SC No. 868/2021 in the Assistant Sessions Court, Irinjalakuda (Crime No. 145/2020, Kattoor Police Station). The petitioners, Bibin and Shehin, contend that the disputes have been amicably settled with the victims, who have affidavits stating no objection to quashing the prosecutions. The State/Prosecution, while expressing reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement, concedes the existence of a settlement. Relying on established jurisprudence, the High Court refers to State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) and, in turn, to Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, to articulate the governing principle: quashing under Sec. 482 CrPC is permissible for non-compoundable offences primarily private in character where the entire dispute has been resolved. However, this does not apply to heinous or serious offences and those under special statutes; if S.307 IPC or Arms Act is involved, a further evidence-based assessment post-investigation may be required. The court notes the need to consider the antecedents and conduct of the accused. After evaluating the affidavits and records, the court concluded the dispute to be private, accepted the settlements, and allowed the petitions, quashing the respective prosecutions. The orders thus quash CC 783/2021 and SC 868/2021 against the petitioners.

Provisions of Law Cited

CrPC, 1973 – Section 482IPC – Section 320IPC – Section 307Arms ActPrevention of Corruption ActGeneral references to CrPC, 1973 and applicable sections

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Quashing of proceedings under Sec. 482 CrPC in private disputes where there is settlement and no substantial public interest involved (as articulated in Laxmi Narayan, Gian Singh, Narinder Singh)
  • Offences non-compoundable can be quashed if there is a settled private dispute and limited impact on society
  • Not to quash heinous/serious offences (e.g., murder, rape, dacoity) or offences under special statutes on the basis of settlement
  • Court may evaluate the nature of injuries/culpability and evidence before exercising power under Sec. 482 CrPC (post-investigation)”

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that the disputes were private, and the victims have sworn affidavits expressing no objection to quashing the prosecutions. Given the settlement, there is no public interest left to be served by continuing the cases; quashing would end litigation and avoid harassment and further victimisation. They relied on the cited Supreme Court decisions to justify quashing non-compoundable offences in private settlements, noting that the offences are primarily private in character and do not involve public harm beyond the immediate parties.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents, while not opposing the settlement, cautioned against relying solely on compromise to quash non-compoundable offences. The Public Prosecutor stressed the necessity of ensuring that the settled disputes do not involve serious offences or acts of public interest. He highlighted the need to assess the nature of the offences, the evidence, and the possibility that charges under Sec. 307 IPC or Acts like the Arms Act may require further examination of evidence post-investigation. Nonetheless, he acknowledged the existence of a settlement and the victims’ consent; the court could nevertheless examine the underlying facts before exercising its discretionary power under Sec. 482 CrPC.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others2019 (5) SCC 688PositiveUsed as the leading authority to justify quashing non-compoundable offences in private settlements under Sec 482 CrPC.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another2012 (10) SCC 303PositiveCited as part of the doctrinal framework validating the settlement-based quashing when disputes are private.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another2014 (6) SCC 466PositiveCited for doctrinal support in the framework governing quashing in private, 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 Criminal Miscellaneous Case Nos. 10267 of 2023 and 10015 of 2023 (Common Order) 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 13[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA, ``` ## **`1945`** ## **`CRL.MC NO. 10267 OF 2023`** ``` CRIME NO.668/2020 OF Kattoor Police Station, Thrissur AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC 783/2021 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, IRINJALAKUDA ``` ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2:`** - `1 BIBIN, AGED 33 YEARS SON OF BALAN, THEPPURATH HOUSE, POTHANI DESOM, EDATHIRINJI VILLAGE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680122` - `2 SHEHIN, AGED 39 YEARS, SON OF HAMEED, NEDUMPURAKKAL HOUSE, POTHANI DESOM, EDATHIRINJI VILLAGE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680122` - `BY ADV JITHIN BABU A` ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE OF KERALA/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & INJURED:`** - `1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031` - `2 SHAJAN, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O GEORGE, KOCHUVEETIL HOUSE, POTHANI DESOM, EDATHIRINJI VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680122` - `3 EDWIN, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O SHAJAN, KOCHUVEETIL HOUSE, POTHANI DESOM, EDATHIRINJI VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680122` - `SRI.ARUN SAMUEL` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` SRI MP PRASANTH , PP ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.12.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.10015/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` Crl.MC.10267 & 10015 OF 2023 2 # **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA, ``` ## **`1945`** ## **`CRL.MC NO. 10015 OF 2023`** ``` CRIME NO.145/2020 OF Kattoor Police Station, Thrissur AGAINST THE ORDER IN SC 868/2021 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS ``` ## **`COURT, IRINJALAKUDA`** ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2:`** - `1 BIBIN, AGED 33 YEARS SON OF BALAN, THEPPURATH HOUSE, POTHANI DESOM, EDATHIRINJI VILLAGE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680122` - `2 SHEHIN, AGED 39 YEARS SON OF HAMEED, NEDUMPURAKKAL HOUSE, POTHANI DESOM, EDATHIRINJI VILLAGE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680122 BY ADV JITHIN BABU A` ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE OF KERALA:`** - `1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031` - `2 ANSON, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O SHAJAN, KOCHUVEETIL HOUSE, POTHANI DESOM, EDATHIRINJI VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680122` - `3 SABAREESH, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O SASIDHARAN, KORATH HOUSE, POTHANI DESOM, EDATHIRINJI VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680122` - `SRI.ARUN SAMUEL` ``` SRI.M.P.PRASANTH, PP ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.12.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.10267/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` Crl.MC.10267 & 10015 OF 2023 3 ## **P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** **------------------------------------------Crl.M.C.Nos.10267 & 10015 of 2023 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 13[th] day of December, 2023** ## **COMMON ORDER** These Criminal Miscellaneous Cases are 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.783/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakuda arising from Crime No.668/2020 of Kattoor Police Station, Thrissur and S.C.No.868/2021 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Irinjalakuda arising from Crime No.145/2020 of Kattoor Police Station, Thrissur. It is submitted that, these cases are settled and the victims have no objection in quashing the proceedings. 3. 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 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 Crl.MC.10267 & 10015 OF 2023 4 ## no objection in quashing the prosecution. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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:_ Crl.MC.10267 & 10015 OF 2023 5 _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;_ _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_ Crl.MC.10267 & 10015 OF 2023 6 _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 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.”_ 7. 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, these Criminal Miscellaneous cases are allowed as follows: ## **Crl.M.C.No.10267/2023** The further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.783/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakuda arising from Crime Crl.MC.10267 & 10015 OF 2023 7 No.668/2020 of Kattoor Police Station, Thrissur are quashed. ## **Crl.M.C.No.10015/2023** The further proceedings against the petitioners in S.C.No.868/2021 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Irinjalakuda arising from Crime No.145/2020 of Kattoor Police Station, Thrissur are quashed. **Sd/-** **P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** Sbna/ Crl.MC.10267 & 10015 OF 2023 8 ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 10015/2023`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR DATED 01/03/2020 IN CRIME NO. 145/2020 REGISTERED AT KATTOOR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT. Annexure 2A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 05/06/2020 LAID AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN SC NO. 868/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA. Annexure 3THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 17/07/2023 SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT. Annexure 4THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 17/07/2023 SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT/INJURED. ``` Crl.MC.10267 & 10015 OF 2023 9 ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 10267/2023`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR DATED 29/05/2020 IN CRIME NO. 668/2020 REGISTERED AT KATTOOR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT. Annexure 2A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 01/07/2020 LAID AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN CC NO. 783/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE JFCM COURT, IRINJALAKUDA. Annexure 3THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 17/07/2023 SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT. Annexure 4THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 19/11/2023 SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT/INJURED. ```