CRL.MC No. 11360 of 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Judgment Date: 2024-08-01
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is dismissed. The court holds that, notwithstanding the settlements, the final report shows a prima facie case under Section 307 IPC; the gravamen of the offence cannot be overridden by a settlement in this context and the quashing of proceedings is unsustainable.
Final Disposition: CRL.MC petition dismissed; proceedings to continue in the underlying case; no quashing of the non‑compoundable offence.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

ARUN DAS
MITHUN R NAIR
RANJU
MANISH ANAND
BINU
KIRAN KUMAR
SRIHARI BOSE
BINAZ BASHIR
LIJO @ RAJ

Respondents

STATE OF KERALA represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
SONU SUNIL
PRAVEEN
RAVEENDRAN PILLAI
JAYACHANDRAN
AKHIL

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• M.T. Suresh Kumar
• Sreelakshmi Sabu
• Manjusha K
• Reswin A. Khadir

Counsels for Respondents

• Bija Krishna N
• PP.Sreeja V.

Case Synopsis & Summary

CRL.MC No. 11360 of 2023 arises out of SC No. 515/2018 and Crime No. 1718/2013 at Pathanamthitta, challenging the order and seeking to quash criminal proceedings under Section 307 IPC on the basis of a settlement between the petitioners (accused 1–9) and the defacto complainant and other injured RSS workers. The petition contends that the disputes have been amicably settled and affidavits have been filed indicating settlement; it relies on Supreme Court authority in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another and Laxmi Narayan v. State of Madhya Pradesh to justify quashing non‑compoundable offences. The Learned Public Prosecutor counters that, although affidavits appear genuine, the petitioners are involved in other criminal cases, and the final report shows injuries to multiple persons with the potential for murder, indicating a serious offence. On review of the final report, the court notes that the accused, who are CPM members, allegedly attacked the defacto complainant and others using iron rods and sword sticks, causing injuries including to the forehead and chest, suggesting a possible murder attempt. The court emphasizes that in cases involving serious crimes, settlement cannot be a basis to quash the proceedings. Consequently, the petition is dismissed, and the ongoing criminal proceedings are not quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 307 IPC

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that disputes with the defacto complainant and others have been settled, supported by affidavits; they submit that non‑compoundable allegations in the final report do not establish a commission of any offence under Section 307 IPC. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another and Laxmi Narayan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, they urge that the proceedings can be quashed on the basis of the settlement despite non‑compoundable offences, and seek quashing of the proceedings accordingly.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor submits that although affidavits appear genuine, the petitioners are involved in several other criminal cases; many injuries indicate a serious offence, including an attempt to murder. The court cannot rely on the alleged settlement to quash the proceedings, as the gravamen of the offence under Section 307 IPC remains and must be addressed in the ongoing proceedings.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another	[(2012) 10 SCC 303]	Positive	Cited as controlling authority supporting the proposition that quashing of proceedings on the basis of settlement can be permissible in appropriate circumstances; the present case references it to frame the argument but distinguishes it on gravity of offences.
Laxmi Narayan v. State of Madhya Pradesh	[(2019) 5 SCC 688]	Positive	Cited along with Gian Singh as part of the controlling authority on quashing on settlement; used to justify permissible quashing in suitable contexts, though the present case relies on gravity of offences to deny quashing.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS** **THURSDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF AUGUST 2024 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1946** ## **CRL.MC NO. 11360 OF 2023** **CRIME NO.1718/2013 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION, AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SC NO.515 OF 2018 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - II, PATHANAMTHITTA / II ADDL.M.A.C.T.** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 9:** - **1 ARUN DAS, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. BHAGAVAN PILLAI, KRISHNA NIVAS, MALAYALAPUZHA VILLAGE, MALAYALAPUZHA THAZHAM PO, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689666** - **2 MITHUN R NAIR, AGED 36 YEARS** - **S/O RAVINDRAN NAIR, KIZHAKKATTU HOUSE, MALAYALAPUZHA VILLAGE, MALAYALAPUZHA THAZHAM PO , PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689666** - **3 RANJU, AGED 30 YEARS S/O. ANANDAN, KADAKKAMANNIL HOUSE, PAMBETTUMALA, KIZHAKKUPURAM, MALAYALAPUZHA VILLAGE, MALAYALAPUZHA THAZHAM PO, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689666** - **4 MANISH ANAND, AGED 31 YEARS** - **S/O. ANANDAN, MODIYIL HOUSE, KOTTAMUKKU, KIZHAKKUPURAM, MALAYALAPUZHA VILLAGE, MALAYALAPUZHA THAZHAM PO , PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689666** - **5 BINU, AGED 30 YEARS** - **S/O. MOHANAN, KANDATHUVALIYIL HOUSE, ELAKKULAM, NALLOOR, MALAYALAPUZHA VILLAGE, MALAYALAPUZHA THAZHAM PO , PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689666** - **6 KIRAN KUMAR, AGED 35 YEARS S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, VADAKKEDATHU HOUSE, MURINGAMANGALAM, IRAVAN VILLAGE , MALAYALAPUZHA VILLAGE, MALAYALAPUZHA THAZHAM PO, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689666** - **7 SRIHARI BOSE, AGED 31 YEARS S/O. CHANDRA BOSE, KADUVAKKUZHIYIL, THAZHAM PO,** CRL.MC No. 11360 of 2023 2 **MALAYALAPUZHA VILLAGE, MALAYALAPUZHA THAZHAM PO , PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689666** - **8 BINAZ BASHIR, AGED 30 YEARS S/O. BASHEER , METTATTUPUTHEN VEEDU, MANGALA MKUNNU, MANGARAM, KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689691** - **9 LIJO @ RAJ, AGED 36 YEARS S/O. RAJAN, KOCHUPUTHUVATHIL VEEDU, MEDAPPARA, THANNITHODU, KONNI THALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689699** **BY ADVS. M.T.SURESHKUMAR SREELAKSHMI SABU MANJUSHA K RESWIN A. KHADIR** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** - **2 SONU SUNIL, AGED 25 YEARS S/O SUNIL , THULASIMANGALAM VEETTIL, EDANADU, MALAYALAPPUZHA VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689666** - **3 PRAVEEN, AGED 27 YEARS S/O PRASANNAN NAIR, KIZHAKKEMURIYIL HOUSE, KANJIRAPPARA , MALAYALAPPUZHA VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689666** - **4 RAVEENDRAN PILLAI AGED 57 YEARS S/O PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, KALAPPANAKUZHIYIL PUTHEN VEETTIL, ELAKKULAM, MALAYALAPPUZHA VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689666** - **5 JAYACHANDRAN AGED 42 YEARS** **S/O RAJAPPAN PILLAI, CHARUVIL KIZHAKKETHIL , ELAKKULAM, MALAYALAPPUZHA VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689666** CRL.MC No. 11360 of 2023 3 **6 AKHIL AGED 27 YEARS S/O VISWAKUMAR, PUNNACKAL VEETTIL, PATHISSERI, THAZHAM, MALAYALAPPUZHA VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689666** **BY ADV BIJA KRISHNA N** **PP.SREEJA V.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.08.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** CRL.MC No. 11360 of 2023 4 ## **BECHU KURIAN THOMAS,J** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** CRL.MC No. 11360 of 2023 **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** Dated this the 01[st] day of August, 2024 ## **ORDER** The petitioners are the accused nos.1 to 9 in S.C.No.515/2018 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-II, Pathanamathitta which arises out of Crime No.1718/2013 of Pathanamthitta Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioners include Section 307 IPC. 2. The prosecution alleged that, on 15.11.2013, due to political animosity between the accused and the defacto complainant and other injured persons, they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and attacked the defacto complainant and others, who are RSS workers who were engaged in helping the Sabarimala pilgrims and committed the offences alleged. CRL.MC No. 11360 of 2023 5 3. Sri.M.T.Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the entire disputes between the parties have been settled and affidavits have also been filed indicating their settlement. The learned counsel vehemently contended that non-compoundable allegations in the final report do not indicate the commission of any offence under Section 307 IPC. It was submitted that as per the decisions of the Supreme Court in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another** [(2012) 10 SCC 303] and _**Laxmi Narayan v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2019) 5 SCC 688),**_ the proceedings can be quashed notwithstanding the same being noncompoundable offences. The learned counsel, after taking this Court though the final report, submitted that the offence under Section 307 IPC has been wrongly incorporated and therefore, proceedings are liable to be quashed on the basis of the settlement. 4. Smt.Sreeja V., the learned Public Prosecutor on 6 CRL.MC No. 11360 of 2023 the other hand submitted that though the affidavits filed by the defacto complainant and other injured persons have been, on enquiry, found to be genuine, most of the petitioners are involved in several other criminal cases as well. 5. On a perusal of the final report, it is noticed that the accused, who are members of CPM had, on 15.11.2013, assaulted the defacto complainant and others, who are workers of the RSS using iron rods and sword sticks and inflicted injuries on several persons. There are injuries on the forehead, left chest as well as on the left hand. The nature of injuries allegedly inflicted on the defacto complainant and other injured persons indicate, prima facie, that there was an attempt to murder. 6. As observed in the decisions mentioned earlier, when serious crimes are committed, the court cannot rely upon the alleged settlement to quash the proceedings. Since I am, prima facie, satisfied that the offence under CRL.MC No. 11360 of 2023 7 Section 307 IPC can be made out, the settlement for the purpose of quashing the proceedings is unsustainable. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Sd/- **BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE** bng CRL.MC No. 11360 of 2023 8 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 11360/2023** ## **PETITIONER ANNEXURES** **ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7-11-2023 IN CRL MC NO 8685 OF 2023 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR AND FIS IN CRIME NO. 1718 OF 2013 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION DATED 15-11-2013 ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 7-112014 IN CRIME NO. 1718 OF 2013 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE DAILY STATUS OF THE CASE IN SC NO. 515 OF 2018 BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE-2, PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 13/2/2024 RESPONDENT ANNEXURES ANNEXURE R2(A) AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 1ST PETITIONER HEREIN DATED 6/10/2023 ANNEXURE R2(B) AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND PETITIONER HEREIN DATED 6/10/2023 ANNEXURE R2(C) AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD PETITIONER HEREIN DATED 6/10/2023 ANNEXURE R2(D) AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 4TH PETITIONER HEREIN DATED 6/10/2023 ANNEXURE R2(E) AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 5TH PETITIONER HEREIN DATED 6/10/2023**