High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed; Prosecution proceedings in CC No.2496/...

CRL.M.C. No. 7127 of 2023, High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

Case / Petition Number:CRL.M.C. NO.7127 OF 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date
2023-10-16
Court Decision / Holding
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. All further proceedings in CC No.2496/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Chengannur, arising from Crime No.2299/2019, Chengannur Police Station, are quashed.
Final Disposition
Quashed; Prosecution proceedings in CC No.2496/2021 quashed; matter disposed in the High Court of Kerala

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Sunil M.S. @ Jaffer; Anishkumar T.P. @ Jiji; Anusivasan Karna @ Anu; Reny Thomas; Girish V. Krishna

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor
  • The Station House Officer, Chengannur Police Station
  • Joice Mathai

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • R. Reji
  • • M.V. Thamban
  • • Thara Thamban
  • • B. Bipin
  • • Arun Bose

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Smt. Sreeja V., Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 CrPC arises from CC No.2496/2021 pending in the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Chengannur, involving five accused charged under Sections 341, 323, 324 read with Section 34 IPC. The petition seeks to quash the criminal proceedings on the ground that the parties have settled their dispute and the victim has supported quashing by affidavit. The Public Prosecutor initially expressed reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement but acknowledged that the matter is settled. The court, after considering submissions, the victim’s affidavit, and controlling precedents, proceeds to analyze the scope of its power under Section 482 CrPC as laid down by the Supreme Court in Laxmi Narayan (State of MP) and related judgments (Gian Singh; Narinder Singh). The Laxmi Narayan decision emphasizes that quashing is permissible for non-compoundable offences with predominantly civil or private character when parties settle, excluding heinous offences or matters of public interest; it also contemplates examination of the nature of injury, evidence, and antecedents. The present case is found to be private in nature, and the settlement is deemed acceptable. Accordingly, the court allows the Criminal Miscellaneous Case and quashes all proceedings in CC No.2496/2021, effectively terminating the prosecution in the given Crime No.2299/2019, Chengannur Police Station. The order reflects a cautious application of settled law to private disputes while preserving public interest in serious offences.

Provisions of Law Cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 482Indian Penal Code, Sections 341, 323, 324 read with Section 34Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 320 (non-compoundable offences)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Civil character of disputes; private in nature doctrine for quashing under Section 482 CrPC
  • Offences of a heinous or serious nature (e.g., murder, rape, dacoity) are not quashable under private settlement
  • Offences under special statutes (e.g., Prevention of Corruption Act) are not quashable under private settlement
  • Consideration of antecedents and conduct of the accused, including absconding, while exercising 482 CrPC power
  • Assessment of the nature of injury and evidence after investigation/charge framing (not during investigation) to determine suitability of quashing

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that the dispute is private, the victim has no objection to quashing, and the entire dispute has been settled. They rely on the settlement and the victim’s affidavit to urge quashing under Section 482 CrPC in light of the controlling Supreme Court decisions that permit quashing of non-compoundable offences with predominantly civil/private character when the dispute is resolved and there is no public interest in continuing the prosecution.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents acknowledge the settlement but caution that quashing cannot be granted solely on such a basis for all non-compoundable offences. The Public Prosecutor expresses reservations and emphasizes the need to assess the gravity of the offence, its impact on society, and whether the offence falls within the category that must be treated as crime against society. They urge a careful consideration of the nature of the charges, evidence, and whether the settlement adequately addresses public interest, especially given the involvement of non-private elements or potential harm to the complainant or society.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others2019 (5) SCC 688PositiveThree-judge bench laid down the governing doctrine that Section 482 CrPC may be invoked to quash non-compoundable offences with predominately civil/private character when the parties have settled, while excluding heinous offences and offences under special statutes.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another2012 (10) SCC 303PositiveCited for its foundational approach to quashing and the principle that the court should apply the settled law to cases involving private disputes when public interest is not implicated.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another2014 (6) SCC 466PositiveReferenced to harmonize and apply Narinder Singh’s conclusions with the Laxmi Narayan framework in evaluating quashing under 482 CrPC in the context of settlement.

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. 7127 of 2023, High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam 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** **MONDAY, THE 16[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 24TH ASWINA, 1945 CRL.M.C. NO.7127 OF 2023** **C.C. NO.2496/2021 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, CHENGANNUR.** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 5:** |**1**|**SUNIL M.S @ JAFFER,**| |---|---| ||**AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.SOMAN.P.K.,**| ||**KAVANKARA PUTHAN VEEDU,**| ||**CHETTIYANMODI, ANGADICAL SOUTH.P.O.,**| ||**CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-689 122.**| |**2**|**ANISHKUMAR T.P @ JIJI,**| ||**AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. PODIYAN,**| ||**ANGADICAL SOUTH P.O., CHENGANNUR,**| ||**ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-689 122.**| |**3**|**ANUSIVASANKARAN @ ANU,**| ||**AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. SIVASANKARAN,**| ||**THEKKEDATHUKIZHAKKETHIL,**| ||**ALA.P.O., CHENGANNUR,**| ||**ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-689 126.**| |**4**|**RENI THOMAS,**| ||**AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. BABU THOMAS,**| ||**RONAL VILLA, PENNUKKARA P.O., CHENGANNUR,**| ||**ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-689 520.**| |**5**|**GIRISH V. KRISHNA,**| ||**AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. K.V. KRISHNA KURUP,**| ||**VRINDAVAN HOUSE,**| ||**PENNUKARA P.O., CHENGANNUR,**| ||**ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-689 520.**| ||**BY ADVS.**| ||**R.REJI**| ||**M.V.THAMBAN**| ||**THARA THAMBAN**| ||**B.BIPIN**| ||**ARUN BOSE**| -2- **CRL.M.C. NO.7127 OF 2023** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULUM, PIN-682 031.** - **2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION, CHENGANNUR.P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-689 121.** - **3 JOICE MATHAI, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. V.Y. MATHAI, VADAKETHIL HOUSE, ALA P.O., ALA VADAKKUM MURI, ALA VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-689 126.** - **R1&R2 SMT. SREEJA V., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** - **R3 SRI. N. SUNIL JOSEPH** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** -3- **CRL.M.C. NO.7127 OF 2023** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** **------------------------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.7127 of 2023 -----------------------------------------------------Dated this the 16[th] day of October, 2023** ## **O R D E R** This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for the sake of brevity). 2. The petitioners are the accused in C.C. No.2496/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Chengannur. The above case is charge sheeted alleging offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused wrongfully confined the victim and assaulted the victim. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties have settled their dispute and do not wish to pursue the prosecution proceedings. The counsel relies on the affidavit filed by the victim in support of his contention. The counsel appearing for the victim also -4- ## **CRL.M.C. NO.7127 OF 2023** submitted that the matter is settled and the victim has no objection in quashing the prosecution. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, has expressed reservations about quashing the proceedings solely on the basis of the settlement. But the Public Prosecutor conceded that the matter is settled between the parties. 6. This Court has considered the submission of the petitioners, victim and the Public Prosecutor and has also gone through the records including the affidavit filed by the victim. 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 (10) SCC 303)** and **Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another (2014 (6) SCC** -5- ## **CRL.M.C. NO.7127 OF 2023** **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 -6- ## **CRL.M.C. NO.7127 OF 2023** 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; 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 -7- ## **CRL.M.C. NO.7127 OF 2023** 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 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 noncompoundable 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- ## **CRL.M.C. NO.7127 OF 2023** 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, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. All further proceedings in C.C.No.2496/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Chengannur arising from Crime No.2299/2019 of Chengannur Police Station, are quashed. Sd/- **P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** bpr -9- **CRL.M.C. NO.7127 OF 2023** ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7127/2023** ## **PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES** **Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO. 2299/2019 OF CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.2299/2019 NOW PENDING AS C.C.NO.2496/2021 ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURTI, CHENGANNUR Annexure A3 NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ON 24.08.2023**