High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeCriminal Miscellaneous Cases allowed; quashing ...

CRL.M.C. Nos. 6648 & 6764 of 2023 (Senvin @ Selvin Skharia; Sajin Skharia v. State of Kerala & Sub Inspector of Police, Aluva West PS; Jacob v. State of Kerala & Sub Inspector of Police, Aluva West PS)

Case / Petition Number:CRL. M.C. Nos. 6648 & 6764 of 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date
2023-09-20
Court Decision / Holding
The Criminal Miscellaneous Cases are allowed. Crl.M.C. No. 6648/2023 is allowed by quashing the proceedings in CC No. 942/2017 (Crime No. 349/2017, Aluva West PS). Crl.M.C. No. 6764/2023 is allowed by quashing the proceedings in CC No. 425/2017 (Crime No. 285/2017, Aluva West PS). The court held that the dispute is private in nature, the settlement is genuine, and there is no continuing public interest that would warrant continuing the prosecution.
Final Disposition
Criminal Miscellaneous Cases allowed; quashing of prosecutions in CC 942/2017 and CC 425/2017.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Senvin @ Selvin Skharia
  • Sajin Skharia
  • Jacob

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
  • Sub Inspector of Police, Aluva West Police Station
  • Jacob
  • Senvin @ Selvin Skharia
  • Sajin Skharia

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Jaison Joseph
  • • M.N. Sanjith
  • • Jimmy Joseph
  • • Archana Ramanan
  • • Veena Vallikantan
  • • Akhil S. Vishnu

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala (State counsel)

Case Synopsis & Summary

These two Criminal Miscellaneous Cases (CRL.M.C. Nos. 6648/2023 and 6764/2023) were filed under Section 482 CrPC before the Kerala High Court and arise from two back-to-back prosecutions (CC 942/2017 and CC 425/2017) pending before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Aluva-II. The petitioners—Senvin alias Selvin Skharia and Sajin Skharia in 6648/2023, and Jacob in 6764/2023—seek quashing of the proceedings on the ground that the parties have settled the disputes and do not wish to pursue the prosecutions. The respondents include the State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, and the Aluva West Police Station, along with the complainants/victims, notably Jacob in one matter and others in the related matter. The learned Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement but conceded the matter is settled. The court examined the affidavits of the victims and relied on Supreme Court guidance (State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan; Gian Singh; Narinder Singh) that non‑compoundable offences may be quashed where the dispute is private and resolved, and public interest is not offended. Applying this, the court held the dispute private and the settlement genuine, and allowed both Crl.M.Cs., quashing the prosecutions in CC 942/2017 and CC 425/2017 (arising from Crime Nos. 349/2017 and 285/2017).

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Power under Section 482 CrPC to quash non‑compoundable offences in private disputes where the entire dispute is settled; civil character of dispute; public interest not offended
  • Non‑quashing is not permitted for heinous/serious offences (e.g., murder, rape, dacoity) or offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act; such offences are not to be quashed merely on compromise
  • In cases involving offences under S.307 IPC or the Arms Act, quashing would be inappropriate as they impact society; High Court may examine, during trial, whether S.307 is implicated and whether evidence justifies charge framing
  • Consideration of accused’s antecedents and conduct (e.g., absconding, entry into settlement) while exercising 482 CrPC power
  • Laxmi Narayan (2019) and related dicta anchor the civil/private nature of the dispute as central to the exercise of power under 482 CrPC

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that the disputes have been settled amicably, the victims have filed affidavits supporting quashing, and none of the offences involved fall under the category of heinous crimes. They urge the court to exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the prosecutions, emphasizing the private nature of the dispute and the public interest in final resolution without protracted litigation. They rely on the Supreme Court’s guidance in Laxmi Narayan, Gian Singh, and Narinder Singh to contend that quashing is permissible when the entire dispute among private parties is resolved and the offences are non‑compoundable but not serious in nature.

Contentions of Respondents

The State’s counsel notes reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement, highlighting that some offences are non‑compoundable and have societal impact. However, the Public Prosecutor concedes that the disputes are settled and the victims do not oppose quashing. The respondents urge careful scrutiny under 482 CrPC, ensuring that no serious or public‑interest offences are extinguished and that the court remains mindful of the nature of offences, the evidence, and the setting of the acts.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others2019 (5) SCC 688PositiveCited as the core precedent authorizing exercise of 482 CrPC to quash non‑compoundable offences in private settlements, while balancing public interest.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another2012 (10) SCC 303PositiveCited within Laxmi Narayan decision as part of the chain of authority informing the scope of 482 CrPC in settlement contexts.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another2014 (6) SCC 466PositiveCited to harmonize and reinforce the principles about settlement and quashing in non‑compoundable offences.

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. Nos. 6648 & 6764 of 2023 (Senvin @ Selvin Skharia; Sajin Skharia v. State of Kerala & Sub Inspector of Police, Aluva West PS; Jacob v. State of Kerala & Sub Inspector of Police, Aluva West PS) 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 WEDNESDAY, THE 20[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 29TH BHADRA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 6648 OF 2023 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 942/2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, ALUVA ``` ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2:`** ``` 1SENVIN @ SELVIN SKHARIA AGED 35 YEARS SON OF M.V. SKHARIA, MANAVALAN HOUSE, M.T. LINK ROAD, MALIKAM PEEDIKA, ALANGAD P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683511 ``` - `2 SAJIN SKHARIA AGED 33 YEARS SON OF M.V. SKHARIA, MANAVALAN HOUSE, M.T. LINK ROAD, MALIKAM PEEDIKA, ALANGAD P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683511` ``` BY ADVS. JAISON JOSEPH M.N.SANJITH JIMMY JOSEPH ARCHANA RAMANAN VEENA VALLIKANTHAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` - `2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALUVA WEST POLICE STATION, PIN - 683511` 2 ``` CRL. M.C. NOS.6648 & 6764 OF 2023 ``` ``` 3JACOB AGED 62 YEARS SON OF PAULOSE, KALAPARAMBATH HOUSE, AMBADI VILLA, WEST KADUNGALLOOR KARA, ALANGAD VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683511 ``` ## **`PRESENT:`** ``` SRI. RENJITH T.R., PP ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.09.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.6764/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` CRL. M.C. NOS.6648 & 6764 OF 2023 ``` 3 ## **`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. 6764 OF 2023 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 425/2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, ALUVA ``` ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:`** ``` JACOB AGED 62 YEARS S/O. PAULOSE, KALAPARAMBATH HOUSE, AMBADI VILLA, WEST KADUNGALLOOR KARA, ALANGAD VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 683511. ``` ``` BY ADV AKHIL S.VISHNU ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031 2SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALUVA WEST POLICE STATION., PIN - 683511 3SENVIN @ SELVIN SKHARIA AGED 35 YEARS S/O. M.V. SKHARIA, MANAVALAN HOUSE, ``` ``` CRL. M.C. NOS.6648 & 6764 OF 2023 ``` **==> picture [7 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** ``` M.T. LINK ROAD, MALIKAM PEEDIKA, ALANGAD P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 683511 4SAJIN SKHARIA AGED 33 YEARS S/O. M.V. SKHARIA, MANAVALAN HOUSE, M.T. LINK ROAD, MALIKAM PEEDIKA, ALANGAD P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 683511 ``` ## **`PRESENT:`** ``` SRI. RENJITH T.R., PP ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.09.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.6648/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 5 ``` CRL. M.C. NOS.6648 & 6764 OF 2023 ``` **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------Crl.M.C. Nos. 6648 & 6764 of 2023 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 20[th] day of September, 2023 O R D E R** These Criminal Miscellaneous Cases are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for the sake of brevity). 2. The petitioners in these cases are accused in C.C. No. 942/2017 and C.C. No. 425/2017 on the files of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court - II, Aluva. This is admittedly case and counter case. It is submitted that the parties are settled the matter. 3. 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 6 ``` CRL. M.C. NOS.6648 & 6764 OF 2023 ``` 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. 4. 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. 5. 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 victims. 6. 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 7 ``` CRL. M.C. NOS.6648 & 6764 OF 2023 ``` 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 ``` CRL. M.C. NOS.6648 & 6764 OF 2023 ``` 8 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 / 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 ``` CRL. M.C. NOS.6648 & 6764 OF 2023 ``` 9 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.” 7. Keeping in mind the above dictum laid down by the apex 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. ``` CRL. M.C. NOS.6648 & 6764 OF 2023 ``` **==> picture [13 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** Crl. M.C. No. 6648/2023 is allowed by quashing the proceedings in C.C. No. 942/2017 on the files of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court- II, Aluva arising from Crime No.349/2017 of Aluva West Police Station. Crl. M.C. No. 6764/2023 is allowed by quashing the proceedings in C.C. No.425/2017 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - II, Aluva, arising from Crime No.285/2017 of Aluva West Police Station. Sd/- nvj ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** ``` CRL. M.C. NOS.6648 & 6764 OF 2023 ``` 11 ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6764/2023`** ## `PETITIONER ANNEXURES` |`ANNEXURE A1`|`THE CERTIFIED COPY OF F.I.R. ALONG`| |---|---| ||`WITH FI STATEMENT IN CRIME NO. 285`| ||`OF 2017 OF ALUVA WEST POLICE`| ||`STATION.`| |`ANNEXURE A2`|`THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL`| ||`REPORT/CHARGE SHEET IN C.C. NO.425`| ||`OF 2017 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL`| ||`FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - II,`| ||`ALUVA.`| |`ANNEXURE A3`|`THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY RESPONDENT`| ||`NO.3`| |`ANNEXURE A4`|`THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY RESPONDENT`| ||`NO.4`| 12 ``` CRL. M.C. NOS.6648 & 6764 OF 2023 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6648/2023`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ``` ``` ANNEXURE1THE CERTIFIED COPY OF F.I.R. ALONG WITH FI STATEMENT IN CRIME NO. 349 OF 2017 OF OF ALUVA WEST POLICE STATION ANNEXURE2THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT/CHARGE SHEET IN C.C. NO.942 OF 2017 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - II, ALUVA ANNEXURE3THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 ``` RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS :NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE