James T.M and others v State of Kerala and others

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 26TH ASWINA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 7990 OF 2023 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC 45/2021 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, MANANTHAVADY ``` ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:`** - `1 JAMES T.M, AGED 63 YEARS S/O MATHEW, THAMARAKKATTIL HOUSE, ALATTIL P.O, VALAD, WAYANAD, KERALA, PIN - 670644` - `2 ELIZABATH, AGED 63 YEARS W/O JAMES, THAMARAKKATTIL HOUSE, ALATTIL P.O, VALAD, WAYANAD, KERALA, PIN - 670644` - `3 MATHEW J @ JASTIN, AGED 38 YEARS S/O JAMES, THAMARAKKATTIL HOUSE, ALATTIL P.O, VALAD, WAYANAD, KERALA, PIN - 670644` - `4 CRISTEENA, AGED 28 YEARS W/O MATHEW, THAMARAKKATTIL HOUSE, ALATTIL P.O, VALAD, WAYANAD, KERALA, PIN - 670644` - `5 JAIMON K.S, AGED 54 YEARS S/O SKARIA, KALLUVETTAM KUZHIYIL HOUSE, ALATTIL P.O, IRUMANATHUR, WAYANAD, KERALA, PIN - 670644` - `6 ATHUL JAIN, AGED 24 YEARS S/O JAIMON, KALLUVETTAM KUZHIYIL HOUSE, ALATTIL P.O, IRUMANATHUR, WAYANAD, KERALA, PIN - 670644` - `7 SIJO JOSE, AGED 30 YEARS S/O JOSE, KOONAMPAKKAL HOUSE, ALATTIL P.O, VATTOLI, WAYANAD, KERALA, PIN - 670644` - `8 ANSIL SHAJI, AGED 27 YEARS S/O SHAJI, KARAKKUNNEL HOUSE, ALATTIL P.O, IRUMANATHUR, WAYANAD, KERALA, PIN - 670644` - `9 AKHIL KB, AGED 25 YEARS S/O BIJU, KOTTAKUDIYIL HOUSE, ALATTIL P.O, VALAD, WAYANAD, KERALA, PIN - 670644` - `10 JIJU JOSEPH, AGED 48 YEARS S/O JOSEPH, KOTTAKUDIYIL HOUSE, ALATTIL P.O,` 2 Crl.M.C.7990/2023 ``` PUNCHAKOLLI, WAYANAD, KERALA, PIN - 670644 ``` - `11 KURYAN KP, AGED 65 YEARS S/O POULOSE, KARAKKUNNEL HOUSE, ALATTIL P.O, IRUMANATHUR, WAYANAD, KERALA, PIN - 670644` - `12 ANTONY NM, AGED 59 YEARS S/O MANI, NIRAPPATH HOUSE, ALATTIL P.O, VALAD, WAYANAD, KERALA, PIN - 674644` ``` BY ADVS. ANIL S.RAJ RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P. ANILA PETER MUHAMMED HARIS K.K. ANN MARIA SAMUEL ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:`** - `1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031` - `2 JOBY JOSEPH, AGED 49 YEARS S/O JOSEPH, RESIDING AT KOCHUPURAKKAL HOUSE, ALATTIL P.O, IRUMANATHUR, WAYANAD, PIN - 670644` - `3 JOHNSON MICHEL, AGED 54 YEARS S/O MICHEL, RESIDING AT PALAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, ALATTIL P.O, IRUMANATHUR, WAYANAD, PIN - 670644` - `4 MANOJ MATHEW, AGED 45 YEARS S/O MATHEW, RESIDING AT KARATTUKUNNEL HOUSE, ALATTIL P.O, IRUMANATHUR, WAYANAD, PIN - 670644` - `5 SHIBU MT, AGED 43 YEARS S/O THANKAPPAN, RESIDING AT MANNATHIMUTTATH HOUSE, ALATTIL P.O, PERYA, WAYANAD, PIN - 670644` - `6 RAJAN, AGED 40 YEARS S/O RAMAN, RESIDING AT VATTAKKOLLI HOUSE, VALAD P.O, ILLATHMUULA, WAYANAD, PIN - 670644` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` RENJITH TR PP ADV.K N RAJANI, ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 3 Crl.M.C.7990/2023 **P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.7990 of 2023 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 18[th] day of October, 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. The petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.45/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Mananthavady arising from Crime No.432/2020 of Thalappuzha Police Station, Waynad. The above case is chargesheeted against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 341, 294(b), 323, 324 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and assaulted the victims using filthy language. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties have settled their dispute and do not wish to pursue the 4 Crl.M.C.7990/2023 prosecution proceedings. The counsel relies on the affidavits filed 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. 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. 6. 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. 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 5 Crl.M.C.7990/2023 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 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_ 6 Crl.M.C.7990/2023 _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 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.”_ 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 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. The further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.45/2021 Crl.M.C.7990/2023 7 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Mananthavady arising from Crime No.432/2020 of Thalappuzha Police Station, Waynad are quashed. Sd/- **P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** Sbna/ 8 Crl.M.C.7990/2023 ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7990/2023`** ## `PETITIONER ANNEXURES` - `Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 432/2020 PENDING AS CC 45/2021 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST-CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, MANANTHAVADY` - `Annexure A2 AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 18.09.2023 SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT STATING THE SETTLEMENT OF ALL THE DISPUTES AND CONSENTING TO THE QUASHING OF ANNEXURE A1` - `Annexure A3 AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 18.09.2023 SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT STATING THE SETTLEMENT OF ALL THE DISPUTES AND CONSENTING TO THE QUASHING OF ANNEXURE A1` - `Annexure A4 AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 18.09.2023 SWORN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT STATING THE SETTLEMENT OF ALL THE DISPUTES AND CONSENTING TO THE QUASHING OF ANNEXURE A1` - `Annexure A5 AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 18.09.2023 SWORN BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT STATING THE SETTLEMENT OF ALL THE DISPUTES AND CONSENTING TO THE QUASHING OF ANNEXURE A1` - `Annexure A6 AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 18.09.2023 SWORN BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT STATING THE SETTLEMENT OF ALL THE DISPUTES AND CONSENTING TO THE QUASHING OF ANNEXURE A1`