Crl.M.C. No. 1800 of 2021

## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ## `THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 19TH SRAVANA, 1944 ``` ## `CRL.MC NO. 1800 OF 2021` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTSC 879/2018 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT ``` ``` & SESSIONS COURT-I, KASARAGOD/I ADDITIONAL MACT, KASARAGODE Crime No. 565/2016 of Hosdurg police station ``` ## `PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:` ``` 1NISHANTH AGED 28 YEARS S/O. SUKUMARAN, R/AT CHIRAKKAL VALAPPU HOUSE, MANIKOTH, AJANUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARGOD DISTRICT. 2RAHUL, AGED 24 YEARS S/O. RAGHAVAN, R/AT CHOORIVAYAL, MANIKOTH, AJANUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARGOD DISTRICT. 3PRAVEENKUMAR K., AGED 24 YEARS S/O. PRAMOD, R/AT THEKKEPURAM, MANIKOTH, AJANUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARGOD DISTRICT. 4SHIBULAL, AGED 37 YEARS S/O. MARUVAN, R/AT NORTH KOTTACHERY, AJANUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARGOD DISTRICT. 5VIVILAS, AGED 27 YEARS S/O. AMBUJAN, R/AT KUNNUMMAL HOUSE, MANIKOTH, AJANUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARGOD DISTRICT. 6SANAL, AGED 32 YEARS S/O. GANGADHARAN V.V., R/AT SANGEETHA NIVAS, PADINHAREKKARA, MANIKOTH, AJANUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARGOD DISTRICT. 7ANEESH K., AGED 35 YEARS S/O. KRISHNAN, R/AT ALINGAL HOUSE, VELLIKOTH, AJANUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARGOD DISTRICT. 8PRAMOD K., AGED 35 YEARS S/O. DAMODHARAN, R/AT VELLIKKOTH HOUSE, AJANUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARGOD DISTRICT. 9BIJINESH P., AGED 29 YEARS S/O. PURUSHOTHAMAN, R/AT MANIKOTH HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMKARA, AJANUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARGOD DISTRICT. ``` Crl. M C. No. 1800 of 2021 ..2.. ``` *Addl.10DILEEPKUMAR AGED 32 YEARS, SON OF GOPI, MUCHILOTTU HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMARA, AJANUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARGOD DISTRICT, 671315. *(Additional 10[th] petitioner is impleaded as per order dated 10.08.2022 in Crl.M.A. 2/2022 in Crl.M.C. 1800/2021) BY ADV A.ARUNKUMAR ``` ## `RESPONDENTS /STATE/COMPLAINANT:` ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031. 2SHAJI AGED 46 YEARS S/O. LATE KUMARAN, PADINHAREKKARA HOUSE, PADINHAREKKARA, MANIKOTH P.O., AJANUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK VILLAGE, KASARGOD DISTRICT-671315. 3SINDHU M AGED 43 YEARS W/O. MADHU, KUTHIRUMMAL HOUSE, PADINHAREKKARA, MANIKOTH P.O., AJANUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK VILLAGE, KASARGOD DISTRICT-671315. 4VIJAYAN @ BIJU, AGED 50 YEARS S/O. KRISHNAN, KUTHIRUMMAL HOUSE, PADINHAREKKARA, MANIKOTH P.O., AJANUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK VILLAGE, KASARGOD DISTRICT-671315. 5USHA UNNIKRISHNAN AGED 45 YEARS W/O. UNNIKRISHNAN, KANHIRAVAYAL HOUSE, PADINHAREKKARA, MANIKOTH P.O., AJANUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK VILLAGE, KASARGOD DISTRICT-671315. 6RAHUL A AGED 22 YEARS S/O. UNNIKRISHNAN, KANHIRAVAYAL HOUSE, PADINHAREKKARA, MANIKOTH P.O., AJANUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK VILLAGE, KASARGOD DISTRICT-671315. 7VISHNU K AGED 24 YEARS S/O.VIJAYAN K., KUTHIRUMMAL HOUSE, PADINHAREKKARA, MANIKOTH P.O., AJANUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK VILLAGE, KASARGOD DISTRICT-671315. 8SUNITHA K AGED 44 YEARS S/O.VIJAYAN K., KUTHIRUMMAL HOUSE, PADINHAREKKARA, MANIKOTH P.O., AJANUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK VILLAGE, KASARGOD DISTRICT-671315. ``` Crl. M C. No. 1800 of 2021 ..3.. ``` 9VIPIN K AGED 22 YEARS S/O.VIJAYAN K., KUTHIRUMMAL HOUSE, PADINHAREKKARA, MANIKOTH P.O., AJANUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK VILLAGE, KASARGOD DISTRICT-671315. 10SARATH K.V.@ APPUS AGED 23 YEARS S/O.VASU, K.V.HOUSE, PADINHAREKKARA, MANIKOTH P.O., AJANUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, VILLAGE, KASARGOD DISTRICT-671315. 11MANOHARAN P AGED 50 YEARS S/O. KUNHIKRISHNAN NAIR, KAPPANAKKAL HOUSE, PADINHAREKKARA, MANIKOTH P.O., AJANUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671315. 12AMAL KRISHNAN AGED 21 YEARS S/O. MANOHARAN P., KAPPANAKKAL HOUSE, PADINHAREKKARA, MANIKOTH P.O., AJANUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671315. 13SANITHA M AGED 34 YEARS W/O. SATHEESHAN, KUTHIRUMMAL HOUSE, PADINHAREKKARA, MANIKOTH P.O., AJANUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671315. 14SANAL K AGED 22 YEARS S/O.PADMANABHAN, KUTHIRUMMAL HOUSE, PADINHAREKKARA, MANIKOTH P.O., AJANUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671315. 15SUNIL AGED 23 YEARS S/O. PAPPAN, KUTHIRUMMAL HOUSE, PADINHAREKKARA, MANIKOTH P.O., AJANUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671315. ``` ``` BY ADV SRI.VIPIN T JOSE ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` Crl. M C. No. 1800 of 2021 ..4.. ## **O R D E R** This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure-AII Final Report in Crime No. 565/2016 of Hosdurg police station on the ground of settlement between the parties. 2. Altogether, there are sixteen accused. The petitioners are the accused Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 14 to 16. The 2[nd] respondent is the de facto complainant and respondent Nos. 3 to 15 are the injured. 3. The offences alleged against the accused are punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 323, 324, 326, 308, 354 r/w 149 of the IPC. 4. The respondent Nos. 2 to 15 entered appearance through counsel. Affidavits sworn in by them are produced as Annexures-AIII to AXVI 5. I have heard Sri. Arunkumar A, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Vipin T Jose, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 15 and Sri. P G Manu, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1. Crl. M C. No. 1800 of 2021 ..5.. 6. The averments in the petition as well as the affidavits sworn in by the respondents would show that the entire dispute between the accused Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 14 to 16 with the de facto complainant has been amicably settled and the de facto complainant has decided not to proceed with the crime against the accused Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 14 to 16 further. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instruction, submits that the matter was inquired into through the investigating officer, and a statement of the de facto complainant was also recorded wherein he reported that the dispute with the accused Nos **.** 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 14 to 16 was amicably settled. 7. The Apex Court in _**Gian Singh v. State of Punjab**_ [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)], _**Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others**_ [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and _**State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others**_ [(2019) 5 SCC 688] has held that the High Court invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C can quash criminal proceedings in relation to non-compoundable offence where the parties have settled the matter between themselves Crl. M C. No. 1800 of 2021 **==> picture [19 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** notwithstanding the bar under S.320 of Cr.P.C. if it is warranted in the given facts and circumstances of the case or to ensure ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court. 8. It is true that the settlement was arrived at between the respondent Nos. 2 to 15 and the accused Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 14 to 16 alone who are the petitioners. Hence, the question is whether the FIR/Final Report against some of the accused alone could be quashed on the ground of settlement invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C. The Apex Court _in_ _**Lovely Salhotra and Another v. State NCT of Delhi and Another**_ [(2018) 12 SCC 391] quashed the proceedings against one of the accused alone, invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C. That was a case where the High Court refused to quash the proceeding holding that the FIR cannot be quashed in part. True, in the said case, the Apex Court had taken into account the facts of the case that no cognizable offence was made out. The Apex Court, on facts, also found that no offence was made out against the appellant/accused therein. However, the principle that could be deduced from the dictum laid down in the said decision is that it is Crl. M C. No. 1800 of 2021 **==> picture [19 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** not impermissible to quash the FIR _qua_ some of the accused alone, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. This Court in **S** _**ajeev & Another v. State of Kerala and another**_ (2022 (3) KHC 69) has held that it is permissible to quash the proceedings against some of the accused alone on the ground of settlement depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 15 submitted that as the dispute between the petitioners and the respondent Nos. 2 to 15 are amicably settled and that the respondent Nos. 2 to 15 have no objection whatsoever if the final report is quashed only against the petitioner. The dispute in the above case is purely personal in nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure-AII as against the petitioners. The offences in question do not fall within the category of offences prohibited for compounding in terms of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in _**Gian Singh**_ (supra), _**Narinder Singh**_ (supra) and _**Laxmi Narayan**_ (supra). Crl. M C. No. 1800 of 2021 **==> picture [19 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that no purpose will be served in proceeding with the matter further. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings in Annexure-AII Final Report in Crime No. 565/2016 of Hosdurg police station as against the petitioners/accused Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 14 to 16 alone stand hereby quashed. Sd/- **DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE** RMV Crl. M C. No. 1800 of 2021 **==> picture [19 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** The rank of the 10[th] accused in Crime No. 565/2016 of Hosdurg Police Station who is impleaded as the Addl. 10[th] petitioner in Crl.M.C. No. 1800/2021 as per order dated 10.08.2022 in Crl.M.A. No. 2/2022 is also added in the body of the final order at para Nos. (2), 6 and 8 occurring at pages (4), 5 and 6 respectively and in the operative portion at page (8) of the final order dated 10.08.2022 in Crl.M.C. 1800/2021 as per order dated 15.12.2022 in Crl.M.A. 3/2022 Sd/Deputy Registrar Crl. M C. No. 1800 of 2021 ..10.. ## `APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1800/2021` |`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`|| |---|---| |`ANNEXURE AI`|`CERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME`| ||`NO.565 OF 2016 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION.`| |`ANNEXURE AII`|`CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME`| ||`NO.565 OF 2016 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION.`| |`ANNEXURE AIII`|`THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 2ND`| ||`RESPONDENT.`| |`ANNEXURE AIV`|`THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 3RD`| ||`RESPONDENT.`| |`ANNEXURE AV`|`THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 4TH`| ||`RESPONDENT.`| |`ANNEXURE AVI`|`THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 5TH`| ||`RESPONDENT.`| |`ANNEXURE AVII`|`THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 6TH`| ||`RESPONDENT.`| |`ANNEXURE AVIII`|`THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 7TH`| ||`RESPONDENT.`| |`ANNEXURE AVIX`|`THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 8TH`| ||`RESPONDENT.`| |`ANNEXURE AX`|`THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 9TH`| ||`RESPONDENT.`| |`ANNEXURE AXI`|`THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 10TH`| ||`RESPONDENT.`| |`ANNEXURE AXII`|`THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 11TH`| ||`RESPONDENT.`| |`ANNEXURE AXIII`|`THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 12TH`| ||`RESPONDENT.`| |`ANNEXURE AXIV`|`THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 13TH`| ||`RESPONDENT.`| |`ANNEXURE AXV`|`THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 14TH`| ||`RESPONDENT.`| |`ANNEXURE AXVI`|`THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 15TH`| ||`RESPONDENT.`|