CRL.M.C No.2184 of 2023

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2023/22ND CHAITHRA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 2184 OF 2023 ``` ``` AGAINST S.C NO.435/2019 OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE IN CRIME NO.114/2018 OF THE ``` ## **`KOYILANDY POLICE STATION`** ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 7:`** ``` 1ABHIJITH AGED 26 YEARS S/O. CHANDRAN, PANJATTU THAZHE HOUSE, KOLLAM (P. O), KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE (DIST), PIN – 673 307. ``` ``` 2ARUN P.T AGED 29 YEARS S/O. CHANDRAN, PANJATTU THAZHE HOUSE, KOLLAM (P.O), KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE (DIST), PIN – 673 307. ``` ``` 3ARUN V.P AGED 31 YEARS S/O. RAJAN, VAZHIPOKKUKUNIYIL HOUSE, KOLLAM (P.O), KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE (DIST), PIN – 673 307. 4ARUNKRISHNA K. AGED 26 YEARS S/O. RADHAKRISHNAN, POOTHERIKUNNUMMAL HOUSE, KOLLAM (P. O), KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE (DIST), PIN – 673 307. 5SURESH BABU K.V AGED 50 YEARS S/O. KELAPPAN, AALATTIL HOUSE, MUCHUKUNNU (P.O), KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE (DIST), PIN – 673 307. ``` Crl.M.C No.2184 of 2023 ``` 2 ``` - **`6 AJITH K.K AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. DASAN, KUTTIMAKKOOL HOUSE, KOLLAM (P.O), KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE (DIST), PIN – 673 307.`** - **`7 ABHILASH K. M AGED 37 YEARS S/O. RAGHAVAN, KOROTH MEETHAL HOUSE, KOLLAM (P.O), KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE (DIST), PIN – 673 307.`** ``` BY ADV K.DEEPA PAYYANUR ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682 031.`** - **`2 BINEESH AGED 41 YEARS S/O. NARAYANAN, KUVOOLITHAZHE HOUSE, MUCHUKUNNU (P. O), PULIYENCHERY, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673 307.`** - **`3 LEELA AGED 63 YEARS W/O. NARAYANAN, KUVOOLITHAZHE HOUSE, MUCHUKUNNU (P.O), PULIYENCHERY, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673 307.`** ``` SRI. G. SUDHEER - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.04.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` Crl.M.C No.2184 of 2023 ``` 3 ``` ## **K. BABU, J** **--------------------------Crl.M.C No.2184 of 2023** **--------------------------------------** Dated this the 12th day of April, 2023 ## **ORDER** This Crl.M.C has been filed by the petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 7 in S.C.No.435 of 2019 on the file of the 1[st] Additional District & Sessions Court, Kozhikode (for short ‘the court below’). 2. The petitioners face charges under Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 341, 323, 324, 427 and 307 read with Section 149 of IPC. 3. The victims in the crime, who are respondent Nos.2 and 3 entered appearance through counsel. Separate affidavits have been sworn to by them stating that they have settled the dispute with the petitioners. 4. Heard both sides. 5. I have perused the averments in the petition Crl.M.C No.2184 of 2023 ``` 4 ``` and the affidavits sworn to by the victims. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the investigating officer enquired into the matter and obtained statements of the victims wherein they stated that they have settled the dispute with the petitioners. They have categorically stated that they have amicably settled the entire dispute. 7. In **Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and Others** [(2014) 6 SCC 466] the Apex Court held that the High Court, invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C., can quash criminal proceedings in relation to non-compoundable offences, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves in the cases not falling within the category of serious offences or heinous offences. In **Narinder Singh** (supra), the Apex Court held thus: “29.5 While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the Crl.M.C No.2184 of 2023 ``` 5 ``` ## criminal cases. 29.6 Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. 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 proving 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/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship. 29.7 While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is Crl.M.C No.2184 of 2023 ``` 6 ``` framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime." 8. The Apex Court held that the High Court shall be slow in quashing the proceedings wherein heinous and serious offences are involved. The Apex Court, however, clarified that the High Court is not foreclosed from examining as to whether there exists material for incorporation of such an offence or as to whether there is sufficient evidence which, if proved, would lead to proving the charge for the offence alleged. The Apex Crl.M.C No.2184 of 2023 ``` 7 ``` Court further observed that the High Court has to take into consideration as to whether the settlement between the parties would result into harmony between them. 9. In the present case, the petitioners face charge under Section 307 of IPC also. I have gone through the accident register-cum-wound certificate and other materials placed before the Court. It is discernible that the victims have not suffered any grievous injuries. I am of the view that, even if, the criminal trial against the petitioners are permitted to go ahead, it will end in acquittal. If the request of the petitioners and the victim is denied, it would only amount to harassment of both the petitioners and the victim. Therefore, I find that though one of the offences alleged against the petitioners is under Section 307 of IPC, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. 10. In the result, Annexure-1 Final Report and all Crl.M.C No.2184 of 2023 ``` 8 ``` further proceedings in S.C.No.435 of 2019 on the file of the 1[st] Additional District and Sessions Court, Kozhikode stand hereby quashed. The Crl.M.C is allowed. **Sd/-** **K.BABU JUDGE** SPR Crl.M.C No.2184 of 2023 ``` 9 ``` ## **`APPENDIX`** ## **`PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES :-`** ``` ANNEXURE 1CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT OF CRIME NO.114/2018 OF THE KOYILANDY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE. ANNEXURE 2TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPORT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE. ANNEXURE 3AFFIDAVIT DATED 02.03.2023 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT TO THE EFFECT OF SETTLEMENT. ANNEXURE 4AFFIDAVIT DATED 02.03.2023 FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT/CW2 TO THE EFFECT OF SETTLEMENT. ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL.`**