High Court of KeralaSingle JudgePetition allowed; FIR in Crime No.1107/2023 qua...

DEEPAKT.L, LALUT.L, THANKAYYANG v. STATE OF KERALA

Case / Petition Number:CRL.MC NO.5633 OF 2023
Neutral Citation:/null

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date
2023-08-08
Court Decision / Holding
Resultantly, this petition is allowed. Annexure-I FIR in Crime No.1107/2023 of Neyyattinkara Police Station, and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners are quashed.
Final Disposition
Petition allowed; FIR in Crime No.1107/2023 quashed; all further proceedings pursuant thereto quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • DEEPAKT.L
  • LALUT.L
  • THANKAYYANG

Respondents

  • STATE OF KERALA
  • THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE NEYYATTINKARAPOLICE STATION
  • VINCENT PLANKALAVILAPUTHENVEEDU, CHEMPARATHIVILA, THOZHUKKAL, PERUMPAZHATHOOR

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • VISHNUBHUVANENDRAN
  • • (adv)

Counsels for Respondents

  • • ASWINNANDAA
  • • SRI.VIPINNARAYAN, SR.PP

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC filed by three petitioners—DEEPAKT.L, LALUT.L and THANKAYYANG—in CRL.MC No.5633 of 2023 challenging Crime No.1107/2023 of Neyyattinkara Police Station (Thiruvananthapuram). The accused faced offences under IPC sections 294(b), 341, and 323 read with 34. The petition argues for quashing the criminal proceedings on the ground of amicable settlement between the parties, supported by an affidavit from the respondent. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about quashing solely on the basis of a settlement, noting that the Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction with caution, especially where serious or non-private offences or public interest concerns are involved. The learned judge surveys the evolving jurisprudence, citing State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 688, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, to lay down the governing principles. The court clarifies that Section 482 CrPC power to quash non-compoundable offences may be exercised where the offence is predominantly civil/private in nature and the parties have resolved the dispute, but not for heinous offences or those under special statutes. After considering factors such as the gravity of offence, antecedents, and the nature of the settlement, the court concludes that quashing would serve the ends of justice and peace. The petition is therefore allowed, and the FIR and further proceedings in Crime No.1107/2023 are quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 CrPCSection 320 CrPCSection 294(b) IPCSection 341 IPCSection 323 r/w 34 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings.
  • Ends of justice and amicable settlement as a basis to quash non-compoundable offences.
  • Exceptions: offences of murder, rape, dacoity and other heinous/serious offences cannot be quashed merely on settlement.
  • Consideration of antecedents and conduct of accused when exercising 482 CrPC.
  • Harmonious reading of State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, Gian Singh, and Narinder Singh in the exercise of power under 482 CrPC.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that the dispute has been settled amicably, there are no ongoing grievances, and continuing the prosecution would undermine peace and the ends of justice. They urge the Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings and record the settlement, thereby allowing the parties to move forward with mutual respect and without the burden of litigation.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor raises reservations about quashing solely on settlement, emphasizing that 482 CrPC should not be used to terminate proceedings in offences that are non-compoundable or have societal impact. The respondent notes that the offence is not of a heinous nature and there are no competing criminal proceedings against the petitioners, and the complainant has stated no lasting grievances.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan(2019) 5 SCC 688PositiveCited as the leading authority to permit quashing of non-compoundable, private offences on settlement under 482 CrPC; the court discusses this principle in paras 15.1 and subsequent paragraphs.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab(2012) 10 SCC 303PositiveCited as part of the framework governing exercise of 482 CrPC in cases involving non-compoundable offences with settlement.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab(2014) 6 SCC 466PositiveCited for harmonizing and applying settled principles to the case at hand, acknowledging limits and prerequisites for quashing.

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 DEEPAKT.L, LALUT.L, THANKAYYANG v. STATE OF KERALA 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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V TUESDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1945`** ## **`CRL.MC NO. 5633 OF 2023`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` 1DEEPAKT.L AGED39YEARS ANUGRAHABHAVAN,THOZHUKKAL, CHAMPARATHIVILA,NEYYATTINKARAP.O, - THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN695121 2LALUT.L AGED37YEARS ANUGRAHABHAVAN,THOZHUKKAL, CHAMPARATHIVILA,NEYYATTINKARAP.O, - THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN695121 3THANKAYYANG AGED68YEARS ANUGRAHABHAVAN,THOZHUKKAL, CHAMPARATHIVILA,NEYYATTINKARAP.O, - THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN695121 BYADVS. VISHNUBHUVANENDRAN B.ANUSREE MIRALK.JOY RESHMAUNNIKRISHNAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1STATEOFKERALA REPRESENTEDBYPUBLICPROSECUTOR, - HIGHCOURTOFKERALA,PIN682031 2THESUBINSPECTOROFPOLICE NEYYATTINKARAPOLICESTATION, - THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN695121 3VINCENT PLANKALAVILAPUTHENVEEDU, CHEMPARATHIVILA,THOZHUKKAL, PERUMPAZHATHOOR, - THIRUVANNATHAPURAM,PIN695121 ``` ``` CRL.MCNO.5633OF2023 ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` BYADVS. PUBLICPROSECUTOR ASWINNANDAA. ``` ``` SRI.VIPINNARAYAN,SR.PP ``` ``` THISCRIMINALMISC.CASEHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION ON08.08.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYPASSEDTHE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` CRL.MCNO.5633OF2023 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **ORDER** This petition is filed invoking the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for the sake of brevity). 2. The petitioners herein are accused, Nos. 1 to 3, in Crime No. 1107 of 2023 of the Neyyattinkara Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. In the said case, they are accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 341, 323 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. 3. The prosecution allegation, as borne out from the records, are as under: On 09.06.2023 at about 01.00 p.m., the petitioners, in furtherance of their common intention, are alleged to have wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant, hurled abuses and attacked him. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties have settled their dispute and do not wish to pursue the prosecution proceedings. He relies on the affidavit filed by the party respondent in support of his contention. Counsel argues that if the proceedings are terminated, with the recording of the amicable settlement, the parties can move forward in an atmosphere of peace and mutual respect. ``` CRL.MCNO.5633OF2023 ``` ``` 4 ``` 5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, has expressed reservations about quashing the proceedings solely on the basis of the settlement. He argues that the facts and circumstances may not warrant the exercise of the court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, it is fairly submitted that there have been no other crimes of serious nature registered against the petitioners to date. It is further submitted that the statement of the party respondent has been recorded, and he unequivocally stated that he does not have any lasting grievances. 6. I have considered the submissions and have gone through the records. 7. In **State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan,[1]** , a three-judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has summarized the law as laid down in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab[2]** , **Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab[3]** and in subsequent cases. It was laid down as under: 15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under: - 15.1. That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having > 1 (2019) 5 SCC 688 > 2 (2012) 10 SCC 303 > 3 2014 (6) SCC 466 ``` CRL.MCNO.5633OF2023 ``` ``` 5 ``` 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; - 15.2. 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; - 15.3. Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like the 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; - 15.4. Offences under Section 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 Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act, etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 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 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 framing 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/delicate 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 ``` CRL.MCNO.5633OF2023 ``` ``` 6 ``` 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 paras 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; - 15.5. While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offenses, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impact 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. Having carefully analyzed the prayer sought in the light of the principles laid down as above and also the nature of the allegations, the gravity of the offense, the antecedents of the accused, and the amicable relationship that now exists between the parties, I am of the considered opinion that quashing the proceedings on the basis of the settlement will not have any adverse impact on society. In fact, it would only serve to bring about peace and secure the ends of justice. Additionally, persisting with the prosecution would be a waste of time, as the prospects of conviction are bleak. In light of all of the relevant circumstances, I am of ``` CRL.MCNO.5633OF2023 ``` ``` 7 ``` the considered view that this Court would be well justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings Resultantly, this petition is allowed. Annexure-I FIR in Crime No.1107/2023 of Neyyattinkara Police Station, and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners are quashed. ## **Sd/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **JUDGE** ``` avs ``` ``` CRL.MCNO.5633OF2023 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5633/2023`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`** ``` Annexure-ITRUECOPYOFTHEFIRINCRIMENO.1107/2023OF NEYYATTINKARAPOLICESTATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED11.06.2023 ``` ``` Annexure-IITRUECOPYOFTHEAFFIDAVITOFTHE3RDRESPONDENT DATED01.07.2023 ```