High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeCriminal proceedings quashed; proceedings again...

Crl.M.C. No. 7623 of 2023 (Against SC 1637/2023, I Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram)

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C.No.7623 of 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date
2023-10-26
Court Decision / Holding
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in S.C.No.1637/2023 on the file of the First Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram arising from Crime No.587/2018 of Sreekaryam Police Station are quashed.
Final Disposition
Criminal proceedings quashed; proceedings against petitioners quashed; matter disposed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Rajesh R
  • Vimal Kumar V
  • Anil Kumar KS
  • Rahul R Nair
  • Anoop K
  • Anoop T

Respondents

  • The State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
  • The Station House Officer, Sreekaryam, Thiruvananthapuram City
  • Anil Kumar S A

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Shahid Azeez

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Hrithwik C.S.
  • • Sampath V Toms

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 CrPC challenges the order in SC 1637/2023 of the I Addl. Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram arising from Crime No. 587/2018 of Sreekaryam Police Station. Six petitioners/accused (Rajesh R; Vimal Kumar V; Anil Kumar KS; Rahul R Nair; Anoop K; Anoop T) are the respondents in a prosecution for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 308 r/w 149 IPC. The prosecution asserts an unlawful assembly and use of filthy language leading to alleged injuries. The petition asserts that the dispute between the parties has been resolved and the victim has filed an affidavit in support of quashing the proceedings; the victim and the petitioner’s counsel indicate consent to quash. The Public Prosecutor expresses reservations but concedes the settlement. The court relies on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) (5) SCC 688, noting that 482 CrPC power can quash non‑compoundable offences where the civil/private character predominates and the dispute is settled, while excluding heinous offences or offences under special statutes. It emphasizes consideration of the accused’s antecedents and conduct. The court finds the dispute private, accepts the settlement, and allows the Crl.M.C., quashing all further proceedings in SC 1637/2023. Finnaly, the matter is disposed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of CrPCSection 320 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Power under S.482 CrPC to quash non‑compoundable offences in private disputes upon settlement.
  • Not to exercise for heinous/serious offences (e.g., murder, rape, dacoity) or for offences under special statutes.
  • Offences under S.307 IPC and the Arms Act are heinous and cannot be quashed.
  • High Court may assess the nature of injury and evidence after investigation before exercising 482, not during investigation.
  • Antecedents and conduct of the accused are relevant when applying 482 after settlement.
  • Read Narinder Singh and Gian Singh harmoniously with Laxmi Narayan.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that the parties have settled their dispute and wish to non-prosecute; rely on the victim’s affidavit; there is support for quashing; the matter is private; non‑compoundable offences arise out of private dispute; cite Laxmi Narayan and Narinder Singh; seek quashing under 482 CrPC and termination of proceedings.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor expresses reservations but concedes settlement; offences are non‑compoundable; however, the settlement may be considered in light of the private nature of the dispute; the court should ensure that there is sufficient evidence to sustain charges if needed, and that serious offences and those under special statutes are not quashed; the court should examine the nature of the charges (IPC 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 308 r/w 149) and the social impact.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others2019 (5) SCC 688PositiveLaw laid down that 482 CrPC power can quash non‑compoundable offences where civil/private character predominates and disputes are settled.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another2012 (10) SCC 303Mentioned OnlyCited as part of the chain of authority relied upon by Laxmi Narayan; not directly elaborated or applied in the present judgment.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another2014 (6) SCC 466Mentioned OnlyCited as part of the law relied upon by Laxmi Narayan; not directly discussed in the current judgment.

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. 7623 of 2023 (Against SC 1637/2023, I Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram) 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 THURSDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 7623 OF 2023 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT SC 1637/2023 OF I ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 6:** 1 RAJESH R AGED 38 YEARS S/O. S RAVEENDRAN NAIR, RESIDING AT KUCHU VEEDU, KANJICKAL, POWDIKONAM P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695587 2 VIMAL KUMAR V AGED 37 YEARS S/O. VIJAYAN NAIR, RESIDING AT GEETHA BHAVAN, KANJICKAL, POWDIKONAM P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695587 3 ANIL KUMAR KS AGED 45 YEARS S/O. KRISHNAN NAIR K, RESIDING AT PUTHUVAL PUTHEN VEEDU, VATTAKARIKKAKOM, PANTHALAKODU, VATTAPPARA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695028 4 RAHUL R NAIR AGED 33 YEARS S/O RAJENDRAN NAIR K RESIDING AT RAHI BHAVAN, ULIYAZHATHURA, POWDIKONAM P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695587 5 ANOOP K AGED 37 YEARS S/O KRISHNAN NAIR, RESIDING AT KRISHNA NIVAS ULIYAZHATHURA, POWDIKONAM P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695587 6 ANOOP T AGED 33 YEARS S/O THULASI, RESIDING AT ANU BHAVAN KANJIKKAL, ULIYAZHATHURA, POWDIKONAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695587 2 Crl.M.C.No.7623 of 2023 BY ADV. SHAHID AZEEZ ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** 1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER SREEKARYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY, THIRUVANATHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695017 3 ANIL KUMAR S A AGED 37 YEARS S/O. ANCY C, PUTHUVAL PUTHEN VEEDU, VATTAKARIKKAKOM, PANTHALAKODU, VATTAPPARA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695028 BY ADV.SRI.HRITHWIK C.S., PP SRI.SAMPATH V TOMS THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.No.7623 of 2023 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** **------------------------------** **Crl.M.C.No.7623 of 2023** **---------------------------------------------Dated this the 26[th] day of October, 2023** ## **ORDER** This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for the sake of brevity). 2. Petitioners are the accused in S.C.No.1637/2023 on the file of the First Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram arising from Crime No.587/2018 of Sreekaryam Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 308 r/w 149 IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused Crl.M.C.No.7623 of 2023 4 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and attacked the victim using filthy languages. 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 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 Crl.M.C.No.7623 of 2023 5 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 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_ Crl.M.C.No.7623 of 2023 6 _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 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 on the vital_ Crl.M.C.No.7623 of 2023 7 _/ 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 non- compoundable 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. 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 Crl.M.C.No.7623 of 2023 8 accepted. Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous case is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in S.C.No.1637/2023 on the file of the First Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram arising from Crime No.587/2018 of Sreekaryam Police Station are quashed. Sd/- DM **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** Crl.M.C.No.7623 of 2023 9 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7623/2023** PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR DATED 10.4.2018 IN CRIME NO.587/2018 OF SREEKARYAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ANNEXURE A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 5.8.2021 IN CRIME NO 587/2018 OF SREEKARYAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ANNEXURE A3 THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 12.9.2023 SWORN IN BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS :NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE