High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed; Final Report and proceedings in CC 518...

CRL.M.C No. 5705 of 2023

Case / Petition Number:CRL.MC NO. 5705 OF 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
Judgment Date
2023-08-10
Court Decision / Holding
The petition is allowed. Annexure-A2 Final Report in Crime No.164/2023 of Dharmadam Police Station and all further proceedings against the petitioners in CC No.518/2023 before the Judicial Magistrate of Thalassery are quashed.
Final Disposition
Quashed; Final Report and proceedings in CC 518/2023 quashed; case disposed in favour of the petitioners.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • ROSHINRAJM
  • SUJEESHC
  • VIDHUNVP
  • SAGARM

Respondents

  • STATE OF KERALA
  • MRIDHULP

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Adv. M. Anuroop

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri. T. Renjith, Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case challenges the continuation of proceedings in CC No. 518/2023 (Judicial Magistrate First Class, Thalassery) arising from Dharmadam Police Station Crime No. 164/2023. Accused Nos. 1–4, Roshinrajm, Sujeesh C, Vidhun VP, and Sagarm, faced charges under Sections 341, 323, 324, 506, and 308 read with Section 34 IPC. The petition, under Section 482 CrPC, seeks to quash the final report and all further proceedings on the basis that the dispute has been amicably settled and the respondents have no grievances. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations but acknowledged the absence of other crimes by the accused. The Judge cites State of MP v. Laxmi Narayan and the lineage of Gian Singh and Narinder Singh to lay down the governing principle: quashing is permissible for non-compoundable offences of a civil/private nature once there is a complete settlement, provided the offences are not heinous or those under special statutes or involving public servants. The court also clarifies that even where Section 307 IPC or Arms Act is mentioned, such cases cannot be quashed if they are serious crimes affecting society, though the decision can consider the evidence and stage of proceedings. On balance, given the gravity, injuries, the accused's antecedents, and the peace now sought by the parties, the court concludes quashing would not undermine public interest and would serve ends of justice. The petition is allowed; the Final Report and CC proceedings are quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)Section 320 CrPC (non-compoundable offences)Sections 341 IPCSection 323 IPCSection 324 IPCSection 506 IPC308 IPC read with 34 IPCCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973Indian Penal Code

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Quashing of non-compoundable offences under Section 482 CrPC where disputes have been settled in civil/private nature.
  • Such quashing is not permissible for heinous and serious offences (e.g., murder, rape, dacoity) or offences under special statutes or involving public servants.
  • In exercising 482 CrPC power, factors include the nature of the offence, gravity, injuries, antecedents, and the terms of the amicable settlement.
  • If an offence under Section 307 IPC or Arms Act is involved, the court may examine the nature of injury and evidence to decide whether quashing is appropriate, particularly after investigation and charge framing.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that the dispute has been amicably settled and both parties desire termination of the proceedings; recording of the settlement will promote peace and justice. They rely on the supporting affidavit from the respondent to seek quashing under Section 482 CrPC.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor expresses reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement but notes there are no other crimes against the petitioners. He also states the respondent has no lasting grievances.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan(2019) 5 SCC 688PositiveCited for the proposition that quashing under 482 is permissible for non-compoundable, predominantly civil/private offences when there is a complete settlement; exceptional cases exist for heinous/offences under special statutes.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab(2012) 10 SCC 303PositiveCited as foundational authority clarifying the scope and limits of quashing under 482 in the context of settlements and private disputes.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab(2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54PositiveCited regarding harmonious reading of precedents and the conditions under which quashing may be considered post-investigation and during trial.

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 CRL.M.C No. 5705 of 2023 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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V THURSDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 19TH SRAVANA, 1945`** ## **`CRL.MC NO. 5705 OF 2023`** ## **`CC 518/2023 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, THALASSERY CRIME NO.164/2023 OF DHARMADAM POLICE STATION, KANNUR`** ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 4:`** ``` 1ROSHINRAJM AGED35YEARS S/ORAJU,SRAVANAHOUSE,VELLOZHUKK,DHARAMADAM, KANNUR,PIN-670661 2SUJEESHC AGED42YEARS S/OHARIDASAN,THANDOTHHOUSE,VELLOZHUKE,PALAYAD(PO), DHARMADAM,KANNUR,PIN-670661 3VIDHUNVP AGED40YEARS S/ODIVAKARAN,MIDHUNNIVAS,VELLOZHUKK,PALAYAD, DHARMADAM,KANNUR,PIN-670661 4SAGARM AGED40YEARS S/OSUKUMARAN,MAROLIHOUSE,VELLOZHUKK,PALAYAD, DHARAMADAM,PIN-670661 ``` ``` BYADVM.ANUROOP ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:`** ``` 1STATEOFKERALA REPRESENTEDBYTHEPUBLICPROSECUTOR, HIGHCOURTOFKERALA,ERNAKULAM-,PIN-682031 2MRIDHULP, AGED29YEARS, S/OGIREESHKUMAR,VALIYAMUTTATHHOUSE,CHIRAKKUNI, ``` Crl.M.C No.5705 of 2023 2 ``` DHARMADAMAMSOM,PALAYAD,KANNURDISTRICT, PIN-670661 ``` ``` SRI.TRRENJITH,SR.PUBLICPROSECUTOR ``` ``` THISCRIMINALMISC.CASEHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION ON10.08.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYPASSEDTHE FOLLOWING: ``` Crl.M.C No.5705 of 2023 3 ## **ORDER** This petition is filed invoking the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for the sake of brevity). 2. The petitioners herein are the accused, Nos.1 to 4, in CC.No.518 of 2023, on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Thalassery. In the said case, they are accused of committing offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 506, 308 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. 3. The prosecution allegation, as borne out from the records, are as under: On 20.03.2023 at about 21.00 hrs, the petitioners herein, in furtherance of their common intention, wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and attacked him, causing injuries. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties have settled their dispute and do not wish to pursue the prosecution proceedings. He relies on the affidavit filed by the party respondent in support of his contention. Counsel argues that if the proceedings are terminated, with the recording of the amicable settlement, the parties can move forward in an atmosphere of peace and mutual respect. Crl.M.C No.5705 of 2023 4 5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, has expressed reservations about quashing the proceedings solely on the basis of the settlement. He argues that the facts and circumstances may not warrant the exercise of the court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, it is fairly submitted that there have been no other crimes of serious nature registered against the petitioners to date. It is further submitted that the statement of the party respondent has been recorded, and he has unequivocally stated that he does not have any lasting grievances. 6. I have considered the submissions and have gone through the records. 7. In **State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan,[1]** , a three-judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has summarized the law as laid down in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab[2]** , **Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab[3]** and in subsequent cases. 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 > 1 [(2019) 5 SCC 688] > 2 (2012) 10 SCC 303 > 3 2014 (6) SCC 466 Crl.M.C No.5705 of 2023 5 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 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 Crl.M.C No.5705 of 2023 6 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 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. 8. Having carefully analyzed the prayer sought in the light of the principles laid down above and also the nature of the allegations, the gravity of the offense, the severity of injuries inflicted, antecedents of the accused, and the amicable relationship that now exists between the parties, I am of the considered opinion that quashing the proceedings on the basis of the settlement will not have any adverse impact on society. In fact, it would only serve to bring about peace and secure the ends of justice. Crl.M.C No.5705 of 2023 7 Additionally, persisting with the prosecution would be a waste of time, as the prospects of conviction are bleak. In the light of all of the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court would be well justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings This petition is allowed. Annexure-A2 Final Report in Crime No.164/2023 of Dharmadam Police Station and all further proceedings against the petitioners pending as C.C.No.518/2023 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Thalassery, are quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE** IAP Crl.M.C No.5705 of 2023 8 ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5705/2023`** ``` PETITIONERS’ANNEXURES: ``` ``` AnnexureA1ACERTIFIEDCOPYOFTHEFIR&FISINCRIME NO.164/2023OFDHARMADAMPOLICESTATIONDATED 21-03-2023 ``` ``` AnnexureA2ACERTIFIEDCOPYOFTHEFINALREPORTIN CCNO.518/2023OFJUDICIALFIRSTCLASS MAGISTRATECOURTTHALASSERYINCRIMENO. 164/2023OFDHARMADAMPOLICESTATION ``` ``` Annexure3THEORIGINALOFTHEAFFIDAVITDATED 04-07-2023SWORNBYTHERESPONDENTNO:2 ```