Crl.M.C Nos. 4099 & 4102 of 2022 (Vishnu Suresh v State of Kerala & Ambady v State of Kerala)

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 20[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 29TH BHADRA, ``` ``` 1945 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 4102 OF 2022 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT SC 356/2021 OF SUB COURT, ``` ## **`PERUMBAVOOR`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` 1AMBADY, AGED 26 YEARS S/O JALAJAN, VAZHAYIL HOUSE, ARAKKAPADY VILLAGE, VENGOLA, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN - 683542 2GIREESH THAMBI, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O THAMBI, ILAMTHURUTHIL HOUSE, MOTI COLONY, ARAKKAPADY VILLAGE, VENGOLA, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN - 683542 3LALMON, AGED 28 YEARS S/O VINAYAN, THRUUTHI MALI VEEDU, EACHARAN KAVALA , ARAKKAPADY VILLAGE, VENGOLA, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN - 683542 BY ADVS. S.SUDHA (THAMARASSERY) E.G.REJITHA ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED PUBLIC PROCECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHIN, PIN - 682031 2RAJESHMON K.V, AGED 39 YEARS S/O VELAYUDHAN, KARIKKAL VEEDU, ARAKKAPADY VILLAGE, VENGOLA, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN - 683542 BY ADVS. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR DIVYA B.NAIR ``` -2- Crl.M.C Nos. 4099 & 4102 of 2022 ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` SMT. V. SREEJA PP ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.09.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.4099/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` -3- Crl.M.C Nos. 4099 & 4102 of 2022 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 20[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 29TH BHADRA, ``` ``` 1945 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 4099 OF 2022 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT SC 1356/2021 OF SUB COURT, ``` ## **`PERUMBAVOOR`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` VISHNU SURESH, AGED 28 YEARS S/O SURESH, , CHAYATTU HOUSE, VALIYAKULAM, VENGOLA, ARAKKAPADY, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN - 683542 BY ADVS. E.G.REJITHA S.SUDHA (THAMARASSERY) ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED PUBLIC PROCECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHIN, PIN - 682031 2RAJESHMON K.V, S/O VELAYUDHAN, AGED 39 YEARS, KARIKKAL VEEDU, ARAKKAPADY VILLAGE, VENGOLA, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN - 683542 BY ADVS. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR DIVYA B.NAIR ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` SMT. V. SREEJA PP ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.09.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.4102/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` -4- Crl.M.C Nos. 4099 & 4102 of 2022 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** ====================================================== Crl.M.C Nos. 4099 & 4102 of 2022 ============================================================= Dated this the 20[th] day of September, 2023 ## **ORDER** These two Crl.M.Cs are connected and therefore, I am disposing of these cases by a common order. Crl.M.C No.4102 of 2022 is filed to quash the proceedings in SC No.356 of 2021 pending before the Assistant Sessions Court, Perumbavoor. Crl.M.C No.4099 of 2022 is filed to quash the proceedings in SC No.1356 of 2021 before the same court, i.e., the Assistant Sessions Court, Perumbavoor. These are case and counter case. It is submitted that both cases are settled and there is no grievance to the victims in these cases. It is a fact that in SC No.1356 of 2021 pending before the Assistant Sessions Court, the offence under Section 307 IPC is also alleged. But this Court directed the public prosecutor to get the wound certificate. A perusal of the same would show that the injury sustained to the victim is only on hand and leg. The allegation is that when there was an attempt to attack, the victim used his hand to defend it and he sustained injury. In such circumstances, it is very difficult to attract Section 307 IPC. Since, it -5- Crl.M.C Nos. 4099 & 4102 of 2022 is case and counter case, I think there can be a quietus to all the issues by quashing the proceedings. 2. 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 victims in support of his contention. The counsel appearing for the victimsalso submitted that the matter is settled and the victims have no objection in quashing the prosecution. 3. 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. 4. This Court has considered the submission of the petitioner, victims and the Public Prosecutor and has also gone through the records including the affidavits filed by the victims. 5. 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 -6- Crl.M.C Nos. 4099 & 4102 of 2022 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 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_ -7- Crl.M.C Nos. 4099 & 4102 of 2022 _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 / 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;_ -8- Crl.M.C Nos. 4099 & 4102 of 2022 _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 apex6 court, this court perused the facts in these cases 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, these Criminal Miscellaneous cases are allowed in the following manner: In Crl.M.C No.4099 of 2022, all further proceedings in SC No.1356 of 2021 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Perumbavoor arising from Crime No.2029 of 2020 of Perumbavoor police station, are quashed. -9- Crl.M.C Nos. 4099 & 4102 of 2022 In Crl.M.C No.4102 of 2022, all further proceedings in SC No.356 of 2021 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Perumbavoor arising from Crime No.355 of 2020 of Perumbavoor police station, are quashed. sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** das -10- Crl.M.C Nos. 4099 & 4102 of 2022 ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4099/2022`** ## `PETITIONER ANNEXURES` ``` Annexure A1CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 2029/2020 OF PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION DATED 18.12.2020 Annexure A2CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN S.C. NO.1356/2021 DATED 21.05.2021 OF HONOURABLE ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, PERUMBAVOOR Annexure A3THE SETTLEMENT EXECUTED BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ALONG WITH THE PETITIONER ON 20.10.2021 ``` -11- Crl.M.C Nos. 4099 & 4102 of 2022 ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4102/2022`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ``` ``` Annexure A1CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 355/2020 DATED 19.03.2020 OF PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION Annexure A2CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN S.C. NO. 356/2021 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, PERUMBAVOOR DATED 10.06.2020 Annexure A3THE SETTLEMENT EXECUTED BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ALONG WITH THE PETITIONERS ON 20.10.2021 ```