High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed

Hitesh Kataria v State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:CRL.M.C NO. 5955 OF 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date
2023-09-19
Court Decision / Holding
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. All further proceedings in Crime No.46/2023 of Town North Police Station, Palakkad are quashed.
Final Disposition
Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Hitesh Kataria

Respondents

  • State of Kerala
  • P. Purushothaman

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Urmila Zacharia

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Adv. Sreeja.V
  • • Sri Francis Assisi, Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case arises from Crime No.46/2023 registered at Town North Police Station, Palakkad, under Section 67A IT Act, 2000, against Hitesh Kataria. The petitioner seeks to invoke the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash the ongoing prosecution on the basis that the matrimonial dispute between the accused and the defacto complainant has been settled. The victim has filed an affidavit supporting the settlement, and the final report in the case has been filed. While the Public Prosecutor acknowledged that the matter is settled, he expressed reservations about quashing solely on the basis of the compromise, highlighting the need to consider public interest and the nature of the alleged offence. The court referred to Supreme Court jurisprudence in Laxmi Narayan, Gian Singh, and Narinder Singh, which clarifies that the power under 482 CrPC to quash non‑compoundable offences can be exercised in cases that are private in nature and when the entire dispute has been resolved, with exceptions for serious or public-interest offences. On careful scrutiny of the facts and the precedents, the court held that the case is private in nature, that the settlement is genuine, and that continuation of prosecution would do more harm than good. Accordingly, the court allowed the Crl.M.C. and quashed all further proceedings in Crime No.46/2023, thereby safeguarding the parties from ongoing harassment and the wastage of judicial resources.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 CrPCSection 320 CrPCSection 67A IT Act, 2000Section 307 IPCArms ActPrevention of Corruption Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Power under Section 482 CrPC to quash non-compoundable offences in private disputes when settlement exists.
  • Not to exercise for heinous offences; public-interest considerations.
  • Exercising 482 CrPC after investigation with evidence, not during investigation.
  • Antecedents and conduct of the accused to be considered when quashing under 482 CrPC.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner submits that the dispute has been settled amicably, the victim supports quashing via affidavit, and the final report has been filed; therefore, continuing the prosecution serves no purpose and would be an unnecessary intrusion into private lives.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor initially expressed reservations about quashing solely based on settlement but acknowledged that the matter is settled; stressed that the court should carefully consider the nature of the offence (including non‑compoundable offences) and public interest before exercising 482 CrPC.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
State of Madhya Pradesh v Laxmi Narayan and Others2019 (5) SCC 688PositiveCited as the controlling precedent establishing that 482 CrPC can quash non‑compoundable offences in private disputes where the dispute has been resolved.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another2012 (10) SCC 303PositiveCited by Laxmi Narayan as part of the doctrine supporting quashing in private disputes.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another2014 (6) SCC 466PositiveCited as part of the jurisprudence underpinning the private-dispute quashing framework.

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 Hitesh Kataria 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 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **TUESDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 28TH BHADRA, 1945** **CRL.MC NO. 5955 OF 2023** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** HITESH KATARIA, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.SHEETHAL DAS KATARIA FG 35 SCHEME NO. 54, VIJAY NAGAR, INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH, PIN - 452010 BY ADV URMILA ZACHARIA ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:** 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TOWN NORTH PALAKKAD, PIN - 682031 2 P.PURUSHOTHAMAN, AGED 56 YEARS S/O LATE P VISWANATHAN, SHNATHI HOUSE, SEKHARIPURAM,PALAKKAD, KERALA, PIN - 678010 BY ADV. SMT.SREEJA.V, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.FRANCIS ASSISI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.No.5955 of 2023 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** **------------------------------** **Crl.M.C.No.5955 of 2023** **---------------------------------------------Dated this the 19[th] day of September, 2023** ## **ORDER** This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for the sake of brevity). 2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.46/2023 of Town North Police Station, Palakkad. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offence punishable under Section 67 (A) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused morphed the photographs of the wife and daughter of the defacto complainant and thereby committed Crl.M.C.No.5955 of 2023 3 the above said offfences. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner 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 victim in support of his contention. The counsel appearing for the victim also submitted that the matter is settled and the victim has no objection in quashing the prosecution. 5. 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. It is also submitted by the Public Prosecutor that the final report is filed in this case. 6. This Court has considered the submission of Crl.M.C.No.5955 of 2023 4 the petitioner, victim and the Public Prosecutor and has also gone through the records including the affidavit filed by the victim. 7. 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 in detail and the same is extracted hereunder: Crl.M.C.No.5955 of 2023 5 _“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 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_ Crl.M.C.No.5955 of 2023 6 _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 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 apex court, this court perused the facts in this case and also perused the documents 7 Crl.M.C.No.5955 of 2023 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, this Criminal Miscellaneous case is allowed. All further proceedings in Crime No.46/2023 of Town North Police Station, Palakkad are quashed. Sd/- DM **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** Crl.M.C.No.5955 of 2023 8 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5955/2023** PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OF FIR IN CRIME NO. 46 OF 2023 OF PALAKKAD TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION DATED 09.01.2023 ANNEXURE2 THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 21.07.2023 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ANNEXURE 3 AFFIDAVIT DATED 04.08.2023 OF THE WIFE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ANNEXURE 4 AFFIDAVIT DATED 04.08.2023 OF THE DAUGHTER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS :NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE