High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed

Criminal Miscellaneous Cases Nos. 7354/2023 and 8469/2023 (Lenin v. Rajeev and State of Kerala; Rajeevan, Anwar & Kannan @ Nithin v. State of Kerala)

Case / Petition Number:CRL.MC NO. 7354 OF 2023; CRL.MC NO. 8469 OF 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date
2023-11-01
Court Decision / Holding
The two Criminal Miscellaneous Cases are allowed in a common order. In Crl.M.C. No.8469/2023, all further proceedings in C.C.No.1061/2017 (Crime No.0479/2017) are quashed. In Crl.M.C. No.7354/2023, all further proceedings in C.C.No.1066/2017 (Crime No.500/2017) are quashed. The court held that the dispute was private in nature and that the settlement was genuine, consistent with the law laid down by the Supreme Court for exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash non-compoundable offences in suitable cases.
Final Disposition
Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Lenin
  • Rajeevan
  • Anwar
  • Kannan @ Nithin

Respondents

  • Rajeev
  • State of Kerala
  • Lenin

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • M. H. Hanis
  • • P. M. Jinimol
  • • T. N. Lekshmi Shankar
  • • T. H. Arun Kumar
  • • Sherry J. Thomas

Counsels for Respondents

  • • T. H. Arun Kumar
  • • Sherry J. Thomas

Case Synopsis & Summary

This judgment of the Kerala High Court (Single Judge, P. V. Kunhikrishnan) consolidates two connected Criminal Miscellaneous Cases, CRL.M.C. Nos. 7354 and 8469 of 2023, arising from Palluruthy Police Station crimes 479/2017 and 500/2017 and corresponding CC Nos. 1061/2017 and 1066/2017 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kochi. The petitioners seek to quash the criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the disputes between the parties are private and have been settled, with no intention to pursue prosecution. The Public Prosecutor accepts the non-cognizable nature of the offence (Section 323 IPC) and notes lack of Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. permission, but also stays mindful of the settlement. The court relies on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Laxmi Narayan (State of MP v. Laxmi Narayan) and related cases (Gian Singh; Narinder Singh), which hold that while non‑compoundable offences are generally non-quashable, a private settlement and civil character may permit quashing under S.482 Cr.P.C., subject to parameters such as excluding heinous/offences against society, and examining the nature of the offence, evidence, and antecedents. On balancing private settlement against public interest, the court holds the disputes private, accepts the settlements, and quashes the respective proceedings in both CC Nos. 1061/2017 and 1066/2017. The two cases are disposed of by a common order.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 Cr.P.C.Section 320 IPCSection 155(2) Cr.P.C.Section 307 IPCArms ActPrevention of Corruption Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Quashing of criminal proceedings under S.482 Cr.P.C. for non-compoundable offences when there is a settled dispute and civil character (Laxmi Narayan)
  • Offences of a heinous and serious nature (e.g., murder, rape, dacoity) cannot be quashed merely on settlement (Laxmi Narayan)
  • Offences under special statutes (e.g., Prevention of Corruption Act) or offences committed by public servants cannot be quashed merely on the basis of compromise (Laxmi Narayan)
  • Offences under S.307 IPC and the Arms Act are treated as serious, and quashing is not a routine option; requires examination of evidence post-investigation
  • Court may consider antecedents, conduct, absconding, and reasons for entering into a settlement while exercising S.482 Cr.P.C.
  • Settlement of private disputes may be accepted by the Court if the dispute is private and does not significantly affect society or involve grave offences

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners/accused advanced that there is an amicable settlement between the parties. They are seeking quashing under S.482 Cr.P.C. because the offences are private in nature (offence under Section 323 IPC, a non-cognizable offence). They contended that continuing the prosecution would be unjust and that the matter has been resolved entirely between the parties, eliminating the need for further harassment and litigation. They argued that the private settlement aligns with the civil character of the dispute and that the law permits quashing in such circumstances, as expounded by the Supreme Court in Laxmi Narayan and subsequent judgments.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor stressed that the offence is non-cognizable under Sec.323 IPC and noted absence of Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. permission. While acknowledging the private settlement, the respondents urged careful scrutiny under the controlling principles set by Laxmi Narayan, Gian Singh, and Narinder Singh to ensure that quashing does not undermine public interest, reflect the seriousness of the offence, or bypass required investigation or evidence. The State’s position was to ensure that the settlement is genuine and that the cases should be examined against the framework of non-cognizable/offence severity, not to bypass the system where public interest is implicated.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others2019 (5) SCC 688PositiveCited as the leading principle that when private settlements exist and the offences have civil/lesser character, the High Court can exercise S.482 Cr.P.C. to quash non-compoundable offences, while excluding heinous/serious offences.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another2012 SCC 303PositiveCited to delineate that serious crimes (e.g., murder, rape, dacoity) cannot be quashed merely on settlement; the court may examine the nature of the offence and evidence post-investigation.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another2014 (6) SCC 466PositiveCited in support of the framework for evaluating quashing under S.482 Cr.P.C. in context of private settlements and the stage of the proceedings.

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 Cases Nos. 7354/2023 and 8469/2023 (Lenin v. Rajeev and State of Kerala; Rajeevan, Anwar & Kannan @ Nithin v. State of Kerala) 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 1[ST] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 10TH KARTHIKA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 7354 OF 2023 ``` ``` CRIME NO.500/2017 OF Palluruthy Police Station, Ernakulam CC 1066/2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, KOCHI ``` ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:`** ``` LENIN AGED 46 YEARS, S/O BABU, CHAMBAKKAL HOUSE, SREENARAYANA ROAD, PERUMPADAPPU, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682000 BY ADVS. M.H.HANIS P.M.JINIMOL T.N.LEKSHMI SHANKAR ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE:`** ``` 1RAJEEV S/O SUBRAMANIYAN, APPANKERI HOUSE, SREENARAYANA ROAD, PERUMPADAPPU, KOCHI-, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682006 2STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,, PIN - 682031 BY ADVS. T.H.ARUN KUMAR SHERRY J. THOMAS(K/815/2002) ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSIONON01.11.2023,ALONGWITH Crl.MC.8469/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` CrlM.C..Nos.7354 & 8469 of 2023 **2** ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY,THE 1[ST] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023/10TH KARTHIKA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 8469 OF 2023 CRIME NO.0479/2017 OF Palluruthy Police Station, ``` ## **`Ernakulam`** ``` CC 1061/2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, ``` ## **`KOCHI`** ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3:`** ``` 1RAJEEVAN AGED 46 YEARS APPANKARY HOUSE, SN ROAD, PERUMPADAPPU, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682006 2ANWAR AGED 46 YEARS S/O. K.P.MUHAMMED, THUNDATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682006 3KANNAN @ NITHIN AGED 46 YEARS S/O. PRADEEP, THEKKEKALATHIL HOUSE, KONAM, PERUMPADAPPU, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682006 BY ADVS. T.H.ARUN KUMAR SHERRY J. THOMAS ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2LENIN AGED 46 YEARS S/O. BABU, CHAMBAKKAL HOUSE, S.N.ROAD. PERUMPADAPPU, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682006 ``` CrlM.C..Nos.7354 & 8469 of 2023 **3** ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` SMT SREEJA V, PP ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSIONON01.11.2023,ALONGWITH Crl.MC.7354/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` CrlM.C..Nos.7354 & 8469 of 2023 **4** **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------Crl.M.C. Nos.7354 & 8469 of 2023 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 01[st] day of November, 2023** ## **ORDER** This two Criminal Miscellaneous Cases are connected and therefore, I am disposing these two cases by a common order. 2. Crl.M.C.No.8469/2023 is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1061/2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kochi, arising from Crime No.479/2017 of Palluruthy Police Station. Crl.M.C. No.7354/2023 is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1066/2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kochi, arising from Crime No.500/2017 of Palluruthy Police Station. It is submitted that these are case and counter case. It is also submitted that both sides settled the matter. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. CrlM.C..Nos.7354 & 8469 of 2023 **5** 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties have settled their dispute and do not wish to pursue the prosecution proceedings. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner in Crl.M.C. No.7354/2023 is involved in other cases also. But it is conceded that the offence alleged in this particular case against that petitioner is only under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Moreover, the above case alleged is under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, which is a non-cognizable offence and there is no case to the prosecution that any permission under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. is obtained. 6. This Court has considered the submission of the petitioners, victims and the Public Prosecutor. 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** CrlM.C..Nos.7354 & 8469 of 2023 **6** **(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; CrlM.C..Nos.7354 & 8469 of 2023 **7** 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 CrlM.C..Nos.7354 & 8469 of 2023 **8** 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 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 in the following manner: 1. In Crl.M.C. No.8469/2023, all further proceedings against the petitioners in CrlM.C..Nos.7354 & 8469 of 2023 **9** C.C.No.1061/2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kochi, arising from Crime No.479/2017 of Palluruthy Police Station, are quashed. 2. In Crl.M.C. No.7354/2023, all further proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.1066/2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kochi, arising from Crime No.500/2017 of Palluruthy Police Station, are quashed. JV sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** CrlM.C..Nos.7354 & 8469 of 2023 **10** ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7354/2023`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure ATHE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR AND FIS IN CRIME NO. 500/2017 OF PALLURUTHY POLICE STATION, Annexure BTHE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC NO.1066/2017 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, KOCHI ARISING FROM CRIME NO. 500/2017 OF PALLURUTHY POLICE STATION, ``` CrlM.C..Nos.7354 & 8469 of 2023 **11** ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 8469/2023`** |`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`|`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`| |---|---| |`Annexure 1`|`CERTIFIED COPY OF F.I.R IN`| ||`CRIMENO.0479 DATED 25-02-2017 OF`| ||`PALLURUTHY KASABA POLICE STATION.`| |`Annexure 2`|`CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT NO.668`| ||`DATED 28-0202017 IN CRIME`| ||`NO.0479/2017SUBMITTED BY THE`| ||`PALLURUTHY KASABA POLICE BEFORE THE`| ||`JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-`| ||`II KOCHI.`| |`Annexure 3`|`TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE`| ||`DATED 15/12/2021, ISSUED BY THE`| ||`REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATH, KOCHI`| ||`CORPORATION.`| |`Annexure -4`|`THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT DATED 07-10-`| ||`2023 SWORN BY THE 2ND`| ||`RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT SHOWING`| ||`THE SETTLEMENT`|