CRL.MC NO. 3126 OF 2023 (against the order/judgment in SC 1073/2022) on the file of II Additional Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram

``` INTHEHIGHCOURTOFKERALAATERNAKULAM PRESENT THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV MONDAY,THE5[TH]DAYOFJUNE2023/15THJYAISHTA,1945 ``` ## **`CRL.MC NO. 3126 OF 2023 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 1073/2022 OF II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM`** ## **`PETITIONERS/A1 TO A5:`** ``` 1NARJUMUDEEN AGED54YEARS S/O.POOKUNJU, SAFEENAMANZIL,ANAKKUVILA, CHANANKKARADESOM,KADINAMKULAMVILLAGE, - THIRUVANANTHAPURAMDISTRICT.,PIN695303 2ANAS AGED28YEARS S/O.POOKUNJU, SAFEENAMANZIL,ANAKKUVILA, CHANANKKARADESOM,KADINAMKULAMVILLAGE, - THIRUVANANTHAPURAMDISTRICT.,PIN695303 3ASEEM AGED31YEARS S/O.POOKUNJU, SAFEENAMANZIL,ANAKKUVILA, CHANANKKARADESOM,KADINAMKULAMVILLAGE, - THIRUVANANTHAPURAMDISTRICT.,PIN695303 4HASHIM AGED34YEARS S/O.POOKUNJU, SAFEENAMANZIL,ANAKKUVILA, CHANANKKARADESOM,KADINAMKULAMVILLAGE, - THIRUVANANTHAPURAMDISTRICT.,PIN695303 5KABEER AGED55YEARS S/O.MOHAMMEDKASIM. ATTARIKATHUHOUSE,ANAKKUVILA, CHANANKKARADESOM,KADINAMKULAMVILLAGE, - THIRUVANANTHAPURAMDISTRICT.,PIN695303 ``` ``` CRL.MCNO.3126OF2023 ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` BYADVSHAJINS.HAMEED ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE & CW1:`** ``` 1STATEOFKERALA REPRESENTEDBYTHEPUBLICPROSECUTOR, - HIGHCOURTOFKERALA,ERNAKULAM.,PIN682031 2NOUSHAD AGED57YEARS S/O.ABDULRASHEED, SHAMNAMAHAL,NEARKANIYAPURAMTELEPHONEEXCHANGE, KANIYAPURAMDESOM,PALLIPPURAMVILLAGE, KANIYAPURAMP.O., - THIRUVANANTHAPURAMDISTRICT.,PIN695301 ``` ## `SRI TR RENJITH SR PP` ``` THISCRIMINALMISC.CASEHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON 05.06.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYPASSEDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` ``` CRL.MCNO.3126OF2023 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **ORDER** The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 to 5 in S.C. No. 1073/2022 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram. In the aforesaid case, they are accused of having committed offense punishable u/s 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 427, 307 r/w 149 of the IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. 2. The crux of the prosecution allegation is that the petitioners herein formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and, in the prosecution of their common object on 13.12.2018, at 8.15 p.m, intercepted CW1, who was traveling towards his house in a car. It is submitted that the 6th accused, after intercepting the car, invited A1 to A5 to the spot, and thereafter, all of them attacked the defacto complainant with weapons causing injuries. It is also submitted that his watch, ID Cards, and some money from the defacto complainant were taken away. 3. Sri. Shajin S. Hameed, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the parties have managed to settle their entire disputes and they are living in peace and harmony. Reliance is placed on Annexure-C affidavit sworn to by the 2nd respondent to substantiate his contention. ``` CRL.MCNO.3126OF2023 ``` ``` 4 ``` 4. The learned public prosecutor has vehemently opposed the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The learned Public Prosecutor would point out that the offenses alleged would involve Section 307 of the IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act and relying on the law laid down by the Apex Court in **State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan,[1]** It is submitted that grave offenses such as one under Section 307 and under Section 27 of the Arms Act cannot fittingly be quashed by invoking the powers u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. on the basis of a purported settlement. Placing reliance on the wound certificate of the injured as well as the statement of the doctor, it is submitted that the injury inflicted was on a vital part of the body 5. I have considered the submissions and have gone through the records. 6. In **Laxmi Narayan (supra),** 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 of Rajasthan v. Shambhu Kewat[4]** , **State of M.P. v. Deepak[5] , State of** > 1 [(2019) 5 SCC 688] > 2 (2012) 10 SCC 303 > 3 2014 (6) SCC 466 > 4 (2014) 4 SCC 149 > 5 (2014) 10 SCC 285 ``` CRL.MCNO.3126OF2023 ``` ``` 5 ``` **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 > 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.3126OF2023 ``` ``` 6 ``` 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 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 ``` CRL.MCNO.3126OF2023 ``` ``` 7 ``` 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. 7. I found the wound certificate of Sri. Noushad that among the other injuries, the doctor had noted a linear incised wound of 4 cm x 0.5cm on the left parietal side of the scalp, and about 4 sutures were also applied. The said injury is on the vital part of the body. The Apex Court in **Laxmi Narayan** (supra) had clearly held that Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act, etc., would fall in the category of heinous and serious offenses and therefore are to be treated as crimes against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offense 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 ``` CRL.MCNO.3126OF2023 ``` ``` 8 ``` their entire dispute amongst themselves. After perusing the wound certificate, the nature of the injury and its severity, I am not inclined to quash the proceedings on the basis of a purported settlement. This petition is accordingly dismissed. ``` Sd/- ``` **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE** ``` avs ``` ``` CRL.MCNO.3126OF2023 ``` ``` 9 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3126/2023`** ``` PETITIONERANNEXURES Annexure-ACERTIFIEDCOPYOFTHEFIRINCRIME NO.1936/2018OFMANGALAPURAMPOLICESTATION. Annexure-BCERTIFIEDCOPYOFTHEFINALREPORTINCRIME NO.1936/2018OFMANGALAPURAMPOLICESTATION. Annexure-CAFFIDAVITSWORNANDEXECUTEDBYTHE2ND RESPONDENT/CW1. ```