CRL.M.C. Nos. 9145 & 9188 of 2023, High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

CRL.MC NO. 9145 & 9188 OF 2023 1 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **MONDAY, THE 20[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 29TH KARTHIKA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 9145 OF 2023** **CRIME NO.112/2020 OF Kottarakkara Police Station, Kollam AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT SC 166/2021 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT/SUB COURT,KOTTARAKKARA** ## **PETITIONER/S:** 1 ANEESH @ YESUDASAN AGED 33 YEARS S/O KUNJUKUNJU, PANACHAVILA VEETTIL, NEAR PANACHAVILA JUNCTION, INCHAKKADU, MYLOM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT., PIN - 691560 2 MOHANAN AGED 47 YEARS S/O KUMARAN, KANJIRAMVILAYIL VEETTIL, INCHAKKADU, KALAYAPURAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT., PIN - 691560 3 BENCHAMIN AGED 48 YEARS S/O LUKOSE, PANACHAVILA VEETTIL, NEAR PANACHAVILA JUNCTION, INCHAKKADU, MYLOM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT., PIN - 691560 4 SILVANOS @ JOY AGED 49 YEARS S/O KUNJUKUNJU, PANACHAVILA VEETTIL, NEAR PANACHAVILA JUNCTION, INCHAKKADU, MYLOM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT., PIN - 691560 5 THOMAS AGED 44 YEARS S/O JOSEPH, ATTUPURATHU VEETTIL, NEAR PANACHAVILA JUNCTION, INCHAKKADU, MYLOM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT., PIN - 691560 6 BAIJU @ POTTI AGED 28 YEARS CRL.MC NO. 9145 & 9188 OF 2023 2 S/O MATHAYI, PANACHAVILA VEETTIL, NEAR PANACHAVILA JUNCTION, INCHAKKADU, MYLOM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT., PIN - 691560 7 JIBIN AGED 24 YEARS S/O BENCHAMIN, PANACHAVILA VEETTIL, NEAR PANACHAVILA JUNCTION, INCHAKKADU, MYLOM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT., PIN - 691560 8 GEORGEKUTTY @ SANTHOSH AGED 42 YEARS S/O KUNJUKUNJU, PANACHAVILA VEETTIL, NEAR PANACHAVILA JUNCTION, INCHAKKADU, MYLOM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT., PIN - 691560 BY ADV P.V.DILEEP ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER KOTTARAKARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 691506 3 VYSHAK AGED 24 YEARS S/O SATHYAN, SIKHA BHAVAN, INCHAKKADU, AYIRAVALLYPARA, MYLOM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT., PIN - 691560 4 SARATH AGED 27 YEARS S/O RAGHAVAN, SARATH BHAVAN, INCHAKKADU, MYLOM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT., PIN - 691560 5 AJITH AGED 26 YEARS S/OCHACKO, KOCHUVILA VEETTIL, INCHAKKADU, MYLOM CRL.MC NO. 9145 & 9188 OF 2023 3 VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 691560 6 JOBIN AGED 23 YEARS S/O JOHN, KARAMUGAL VEEDU, INCHAKKADU, MYLOM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT., PIN - 691560 ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SMR SREEJA V, PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.11.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.9188/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.MC NO. 9145 & 9188 OF 2023 4 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 20[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 29TH KARTHIKA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 9188 OF 2023** **CRIME NO.113/2020 OF Kottarakkara Police Station, Kollam AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT SC 1238/2021 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT/SUB COURT,KOTTARAKKARA** ## **PETITIONER/S:** 1 AJITH AGED 26 YEARS S/O.CHACKO, KOCHUVILA VEETTIL, INCHAKKADU, MYLOM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691560 2 PRASANTH AGED 26 YEARS S/O PRABHAKUMAR, KOCHUVILAPADINJATTATHIL VEEDU, INCHAKKADU, MYLOM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. PIN :691 560., PIN - 691560 3 PRADEESH AGED 24 YEARS S/O PRABHAKUMAR, KOCHUVILAPADINJATTATHIL VEEDU, INCHAKKADU, MYLOM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691560 4 VYSHAK AGED 24 YEARS SIKHA BHAVAN, INCHAKKADU, AYIRAVALLYPARA, MYLOM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691560 5 LENIN KUMAR @ CHUTTAN AGED 68 YEARS S/O VIDYADHARAN, NEDUM MELATHIL VEETTIL, INCHAKKADU, MYLOM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT., PIN - 691560 6 SARATH AGED 27 YEARS S/O RAGHAVAN, SARATH BHAVAN, INCHAKKADU, MYLOM CRL.MC NO. 9145 & 9188 OF 2023 5 VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691560 7 JOBIN JOHN AGED 23 YEARS S/O JOHN, KARAMUGAL VEEDU, INCHAKKADU, MYLOM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691560 BY ADVS. K.V.ANIL KUMAR SWAPNA VIJAYAN RADHIKA S.ANIL NANMA.B.B ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER KOTTARAKARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691506 3 BENCHAMIN AGED 48 YEARS S/O LUKOSE, PANACHAVILA VEETTIL, NEAR PANACHAVILA JUNCTION, INCHAKKADU, MYLOM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691560 4 JIBIN AGED 24 YEARS S/O BENCHAMIN, PANACHAVILA VEETTIL, NEAR PANACHAVILA JUNCTION, INCHAKKADU, MYLOM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691560 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.11.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.9145/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.MC NO. 9145 & 9188 OF 2023 6 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** **--------------------------------------Crl.M.C. Nos. 9145 & 9188 of 2023 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 20[th] day of November, 2023** ## **O R D E R** These two Criminal Miscellaneous cases are connected and therefore, I am disposing of these Crl.M.C.s by a common order. It is submitted that these are case and counter case and both parties settled the matter. 2. Crl.M.C. No.9145/2023 is filed to quash the proceedings in SC No.166/21 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Court, Kottarakkara and Crl.M.C. No.9188/2023 is filed to quash the proceedings in SC No.1238/21 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Court, Kottarakkara. 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 by the victims in support of his contention. The counsel appearing for the victims also submitted that the matter is CRL.MC NO. 9145 & 9188 OF 2023 7 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 affidavits 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 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 CRL.MC NO. 9145 & 9188 OF 2023 8 ## 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 CRL.MC NO. 9145 & 9188 OF 2023 9 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; v) while exercising the power under CRL.MC NO. 9145 & 9188 OF 2023 10 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.” 7. 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. These Crl.M.C.s are allowed in the following manner : - 1) Crl.M.C. No. 9147/23 is allowed. All further proceedings in SC No.166/21 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Court, Kottarakkara are quashed. - 2) Crl.M.C. No. 9188/23 is allowed. All further proceedings in CRL.MC NO. 9145 & 9188 OF 2023 11 SC No.1238/21 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Court, Kottarakkara are quashed. Sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** SKS CRL.MC NO. 9145 & 9188 OF 2023 12 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 9188/2023** PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure-A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 113 / 2020 OF KOTTARAKARA POLICE STATION Annexure-B CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 113 / 2020 OF KOTTARAKARA POLICE STATION Annexure-C AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT Annexure-D AFFIDAVIT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT CRL.MC NO. 9145 & 9188 OF 2023 13 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 9145/2023** PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure-A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 112 / 2020 OF KOTTARAKARA POLICE STATION DATED 12.1.2020. Annexure-B CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 112 / 2020 OF KOTTARAKARA POLICE STATION DATED 10.6.2020. Annexure-C A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Annexure-D A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. Annexure-E A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT. Annexure-F A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT.