High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed; all further proceedings against petiti...

CRL.MC No. 8910 of 2023

Case / Petition Number:CRL.MC NO. 8910 OF 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date
2023-11-13
Court Decision / Holding
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in CC No. 1898 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court – II, Hosdurg arising from Crime No. 577 of 2022 of Bekal Police Station are quashed.
Final Disposition
Quashed; all further proceedings against petitioners quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Ranjeesh Kumar P.
  • Dhanesh K.
  • Sivaneeth K. S.
  • Vaibhav
  • Rakul Ram R. V.

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
  • Station House Officer, Bekal Police Station, Kasaragod District
  • Midhun Krishnan
  • Abhinand
  • Abhishek T. K.
  • Muhammed Razique

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri. T. Madhu
  • • (adv)

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri MP Prasanth – P.P.
  • • Sri Thomas John P.

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Sec. 482 CrPC, arising from Crime No. 577 of 2022 registered at Bekal Police Station, Kasaragod, which culminated in CC No. 1898 of 2022 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court–II, Hosdurg. Accused Nos. 1–5 (Ranjeesh Kumar P., Dhanesh K., Sivaneeth K. S., Vaibhav, Rakul Ram R. V.) challenge the continuation of prosecution on the ground that the disputes with the victims have been settled, and affidavits by victims allegedly support withdrawing the case. The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, while acknowledging settlement, expresses reservations about quashing solely on this basis. The court considers established precedents—Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Others; Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Others; and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others—to delineate the scope of its inherent power under Sec. 482 CrPC to quash non‑compoundable offences where the dispute is private and resolved. It emphasizes that such quashing is inappropriate for heinous or public‑interest offences (e.g., murder, rape, dacoity, or offences under special statutes) and where the offence affects society. On careful scrutiny of the facts, the court finds the dispute private, the settlement genuine, and the accused’ s antecedents acceptable; consequently, the proceedings are quashed and the case disposed of in favor of the petitioners.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)Sections 323, 324, 506(i) read with Section 134 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)Section 320 IPCSection 307 IPCArms Act (as cited in legal discussion)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Quashing of non‑compoundable offences under Sec. 482 CrPC is permissible where disputes are private and settled (State of MP v. Laxmi Narayan, 2019 (5) SCC 688)
  • Not to quash offences of a heinous or societal impact (e.g., murder, rape, dacoity) and not to quash offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act, or offences by public servants (Laxmi Narayan; Narinder Singh)
  • If a settlement exists, courts may consider the antecedents and conduct of the accused (e.g., absconding, how settlement was achieved) before exercising power under Sec. 482 CrPC
  • Incorporation of S. 307 IPC in the FIR/charge requires verification by the court after evidence is collected; such an exercise is not permissible during investigation (harmonization of Narinder Singh with Laxmi Narayan).

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that the disputes between the accused and the victims have been fully settled and the victims have filed affidavits supporting the quashing of the prosecution. They relied on the settled affidavits and the broader principle under Sec. 482 CrPC to quash non‑compoundable offences when the dispute is private and resolved, minimized public interest concerns, and sought discharge from further criminal proceedings.

Contentions of Respondents

The State’s counsel acknowledged the settlement but urged caution, arguing that quashing the criminal proceedings cannot be based solely on private settlement where offences are non‑compoundable; nonetheless, they conceded the matter is settled and the victims have no objection. The court was urged to apply the principles set out in Laxmi Narayan, Gian Singh, and Narinder Singh to assess whether quashing is appropriate given the nature of the offences and the broader public interest.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others2019 (5) SCC 688PositiveThe apex court’s doctrine that non‑compoundable offences with a private civil character may be quashed under Sec. 482 CrPC when the dispute is fully settled is used as the governing framework.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another2012 SCC 303PositiveCited as a foundational authority on the permissible scope of quashing criminal proceedings under Sec. 482 CrPC in the context of settlements.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another2014 (6) SCC 466PositiveCited to harmonize and elaborate the conditions under which quashing may be considered in private disputes, particularly regarding the stage of case at which the court may evaluate the 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.MC No. 8910 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 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 22ND KARTHIKA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 8910 OF 2023 CRIME NO.577 OF 2022 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION, KASARGOD ``` ## **`IN`** ``` CC 1898 OF 2022 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,HOSDRUG ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 5:`** ``` 1RANJEESH KUMAR P., AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. RAVEENDRAN K. T., RESIDING AT KALYANAPURAM, MATTA, PADY, ALAMPADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN – 671123. 2DHANESH K., AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. DAMODHARAN P., RESIDING AT MUTHIRANGANAM HOUSE, BEDADUKKA, BEDADUKKA POST, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN – 671541. 3SIVANEETH K. S., AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. REGHU, RESIDING AT JANAKI NILAYAM, MALAMKUNNU, KOTTIKULAM VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN – 671318. 4VAIBHAV, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. CHANDRAN, RESIDING AT ABHINAV NIVAS, KATTADY, AJANOOR VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN – 671531. 5RAKUL RAM R. V., AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. KUNHIRAMAN, RESIDING AT SREEVALSAM, KATTADY, AJANOOR VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD DISTRIC, PIN – 671531. BY ADV. SRI. T. MADHU ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031. ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 8910 OF 2023 ``` 2 ``` 2STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BEKAL POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN – 671318. 3MIDHUN KRISHNAN, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. MURALEEDHARAN, RESIDING AT PATHERI, NADAKKUTHAZHA, NUT STREET, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 673104. 4ABHINAND, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O. SURENDRAN, RESIDING AT PUTHILATH METHAL, NADUVANNUR, KAVVIL, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673614. 5ABHISHEK T. K., AGED 20 YEARS, S/O. VINOD KUMAR T. P., RESIDING AT KARUNYA, AVERA, KADALAYI P. O., THOTTADA, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN – 670003. 6MUHAMMED RAZIQUE, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. RAFEEQUE P. M., RESIDING AT MARACHAL HOUSE, PAYYOLI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 673522. BY ADV. SRI. MP PRASANTH – PP SRI. THOMAS JOHN P. ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 8910 OF 2023 ``` 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** **--------------------------------** ## **Crl.M.C. No. 8910 of 2023** **---------------------------------------------Dated this the 13[th] day of November, 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 Nos. 1 to 5 in C. C. No. 1898 of 2022 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court – II, Hosdurg arising from Crime No.577 of 2022 of Bekal Police Station. The above case is chargesheeted alleging offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 506(i) read with Section 134 of the IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused assaulted the victims and criminally intimidated 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 ``` CRL.MC NO. 8910 OF 2023 ``` 4 affidavits filed by the victims in support of his contention. The counsel appearing for the victims also submitted that the matter is settled and the victims have 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, victims 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** ``` CRL.MC NO. 8910 OF 2023 ``` 5 **(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 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._ ``` CRL.MC NO. 8910 OF 2023 ``` 6 _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 / 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.”_ ``` CRL.MC NO. 8910 OF 2023 ``` 7 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 against the petitioners in C.C. No. 1898 of 2022 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court – II, Hosdurg arising from Crime No.577 of 2022 of Bekal Police Station are quashed. **Sd/P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** Svn ``` CRL.MC NO. 8910 OF 2023 ``` 8 ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 8910/2023`** ## **`PETITIONERS’ ANNEXURES`** ``` ANNEXURE A1THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR DATED 30/7/2022 IN CRIME NO.577/2022 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION ANNEXURE A2THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 31/8/2022 IN CRIME NO.577/2022 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION ANNEXURE A3THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 16/10/2023 SWORN IN BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT ANNEXURE A4THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 16/10/2023 SWORN IN BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT ANNEXURE A5THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 16/10/2023 SWORN IN BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT ``` ``` ANNEXURE A6THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 16/10/2023 SWORN IN BY THE SIXTH RESPONDENT ```