Fr. Thomas Peeliyanikkal v. State of Kerala and Others

``` INTHEHIGHCOURTOFKERALAATERNAKULAM PRESENT THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV THURSDAY,THE10[TH]DAYOFAUGUST2023/19THSRAVANA,1945 CRL.MCNO.2217OF2023 ``` ## **`AGAINST CC NO.303/2021 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, AMBALAPUZHA CRIME NO.108/2018 OF KAINADY POLICE STATION`** ## **`PETITIONER/5TH ACCUSED :`** ``` FR.THOMASPEELIYANIKKAL AGED78YEARS S/O.JOSEPH,EXECUTIVEDIRECTOR, KUTTANADUVIKASANASAMITHI,MAMPUZHAKKARIBHAGAM, RAMANKARYP.O,KUTTANADUTALUK, – ALAPPUZHA,PIN689595 BYADVS. JOHNVARGHESE SONUAUGUSTINE ``` ``` RESPONDENTS/STATE,COMPLAINANT& DEFACTOCOMPLAINANTS(Cws1to4): ``` ``` 1STATEOFKERALA REPRESENTEDBYPUBLICPROSECUTOR, - HIGHCOURTOFKERALA,PIN682031 2DEPUTYSUPERINTENDENTOFPOLICE DISTRICTCRIMEBRANCH, - ALAPPUZHADISTRICT,PIN688012 ``` ``` 3LALICHEN@CYRIAC AGED55YEARS S/O.VARGHESE,PATHILCHIRAHOUSE, KAVALAMP.O,KUTTANADUTALUK, - ALAPPUZHA,PIN688506 ``` Crl.M.C No.2217 of 2023 2 ``` 4K.C.SHAJI AGED50YEARS S/O.CHELLAPPAN,KONDAKASSERRYVEEDU, KAVALAMP.O,KUTTANADUTALUK, - ALAPPUZHA,PIN688506 5GEORGE@SIBYGEORGE AGED47YEARS VELLAPPANATTCHIRA,KAVALAMP.O, - KUTTANADUTALUK,ALAPPUZHA,PIN688506 6KUNCHERIA@VARGHESE AGED67YEARS S/O.GREGORY,VALAYILHOUSE,VELIYANADUP.O, - KUTTANADUTALUK,ALAPPUZHA,PIN689590 BYADVS.TSAJI SMT.NEEMATV,SR.PP ``` ``` THISCRIMINALMISC.CASEHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON 10.08.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYPASSEDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` Crl.M.C No.2217 of 2023 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 petitioner herein is the 5th accused in C.C. No. 303 of 2021 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ambalappuzha. In the said case, he is accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, and 420 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. 3. The prosecution allegation, as borne out from the records, are as under: On 08.03.2012, the petitioner herein, being the Executive Director of Kuttanadu Vikasana Samithi, along with the other accused in furtherance of their common intention manipulated and fabricated records to obtain unlawful gain and thereby committed the offense. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation centers around certain money transactions and that all the party respondents have received the entire amount and have sworn to separate affidavits. It is also submitted that the petitioner has earlier approached this Court and had preferred Crl.M.C. No.2183/2023, and related proceedings were Crl.M.C No.2217 of 2023 4 quashed by order dated 6.7.2023. 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. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner is the 5th accused in the crime this court will not be justified in quashing the proceedings against the petitioner alone. She 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. It is further submitted that the statements of the party respondents have been recorded, and they have unequivocally stated that they do not possess 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 > 1 [(2019) 5 SCC 688] > 2 (2012) 10 SCC 303 > 3 2014 (6) SCC 466 Crl.M.C No.2217 of 2023 5 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 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 Crl.M.C No.2217 of 2023 6 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 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. 8. Having carefully analyzed the prayer sought for in the light of the principles laid down as above and also the nature of the allegations, the gravity of the offence, the antecedents of the accused, and the amicable Crl.M.C No.2217 of 2023 7 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 the light of all of the relevant circumstances, I am of 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-A1 Final Report in Crime No.108/2018 of Kainady Police Station and all further proceedings against the petitioner pending as C.C.No. 303/2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ambalappuzha, are quashed. Sd/- ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V,** ## **JUDGE** NS Crl.M.C No.2217 of 2023 8 ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2217/2023`** ``` PETITIONERANNEXURES: ``` |`Annexure `|`A-1`|`CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET DATED`| |---|---|---| |||`27-01-2020 IN C.C. NO. 303/2021 OF THE`| |||`JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,`| |||`AMBALAPPUZHA`| |`Annexure `|`A-2`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13-09-2022`| |||`ISSUED BY THE CANARA BANK, BOAT JETTY BRANCH,`| |||`ALAPPUZHA`| |`Annexure `|`A-3`|`TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD`| |||`RESPONDENT/CW1 DATED 02-03-2023`| |`Annexure `|`A-4`|`TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 4TH`| |||`RESPONDENT/CW2 ON 02-03-2023`| |`Annexure `|`A-5`|`TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 5TH`| |||`RESPONDENT/CW3 ON 02-03-2023`| |`Annexure `|`A-6`|`TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 6TH`| |||`RESPONDENT/CW4 ON 02-03-2023`|