High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed

Jyothish Chandran @ Unnikuttan v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:CRL.MC NO. 9487 OF 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date
2023-12-01
Court Decision / Holding
The Criminal Misc. Case is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner in S.C. No. 927/2022 arising from Crime No. 206/2020 are quashed.
Final Disposition
Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Jyothish Chandran @ Unnikuttan

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
  • The Station House Officer, Anchalummoodu Police Station, Kollam District
  • Anish, S/o GOPAKUMAR
  • Vishak, S/o Omanakkutan
  • Nandhu, S/o Suresh

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Adv. Pratheesh P
  • • Adv. Anjana Kannath

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Adv. Hrithwik C. S.
  • • Adv. A. Muhammed Rafi

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C. No. 9487 of 2023) filed under Section 482 CrPC before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam by Jyothish Chandran @ Unnikuttan, the 2nd accused in SC No. 927/2022 arising from Crime No. 206/2020 registered at Anchalummoodu Police Station. The prosecution accuses the petitioner and another accused of offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, and 308 r/w 34 IPC, allegedly committed on 28.02.2020 at Thrikkadavoor temple during an annadhanam programme, resulting in injuries to respondents 3 to 5. The petitioner seeks quashing of the ongoing proceedings under Article 482 CrPC, contending that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and there is no ongoing desire to pursue the case. Affidavits from the victims in support of settlement were filed, and the victims’ counsel also stated there is no objection to quashing. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about quashing solely on a settlement but acknowledged that a settlement exists. The court examined the records, including the settlements and the controlling legal principles from State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others and related precedents (Gian Singh and Narinder Singh), and held that the dispute is private in nature and that quashing under Sec. 482 CrPC is permissible when the entire dispute is resolved and the offences are non-compoundable but not of the type involving heinous harm. Consequently, the court allowed the Crl.M.C. and quashed the proceedings in SC 927/2022 and the linked Crime 206/2020.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)Section 320 IPCSection 341 IPCSection 323 IPCSection 324 IPCSection 308 r/w 34 IPCCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)Indian Penal Code (IPC)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Power under Sec. 482 CrPC to quash non-compoundable offences in private disputes when the entire dispute is settled, especially in civil, matrimonial or family disputes.
  • Such power is not to be exercised for heinous offences of mental depravity or serious crimes like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., which have a broader societal impact.
  • Offences under special statutes (e.g., Prevention of Corruption Act) or offences committed by public servants are not to be quashed merely on a compromise.
  • Offences under Sec. 307 IPC and the Arms Act are deemed heinous and should generally not be quashed on the basis of a settlement, though courts may examine the nature of the charge and evidence before deciding.
  • While exercising Sec. 482 CrPC, the antecedents and conduct of the accused, including absconding and entry into compromise with the complainant, should be considered."],

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the dispute is private and has been settled amicably with the victims, who have filed affidavits in support. Based on this settlement, and citing governing precedents (Laxmi Narayan, Gian Singh, Narinder Singh), the petitioner seeks quashing under Sec. 482 CrPC and termination of all further proceedings, including S.C. 927/2022. The applicants argue that the entire dispute has been resolved and continued prosecution would be an unnecessary intrusion into an already settled matter.

Contentions of Respondents

The State, through the Public Prosecutor, expresses reservations about quashing solely on the basis of a compromise, though it does not oppose the existence of settlement. It contends that the offences charged (Sections 341, 323, 324, 308 r/w 34 IPC) are non-compoundable and involve acts affecting public order and safety. The respondents urge careful consideration of the nature of the offences, the evidence, and the societal impact before exercising the CrPC remedy, and highlight the need to ensure that no miscarriage of justice occurs by prematurely quashing with only private settlement.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others2019 (5) SCC 688PositiveCited to establish the controlling principle that Sec. 482 CrPC can quash non-compoundable offences where private disputes are settled and the societal impact is minimal, while distinguishing serious/offences with broader impact.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another2012 (10) SCC 303PositiveQuoting Gian Singh to support the general framework that compounding/settlement can justify quashing non-compoundable offences under Sec. 482 CrPC in appropriate cases.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another2014 (6) SCC 466PositiveUsed alongside Laxmi Narayan to elaborate the procedural and factual considerations for exercise of power under Sec. 482 in the context of settlements and non-compoundable offences.

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 Jyothish Chandran @ Unnikuttan v. State of Kerala and Others 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 FRIDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945** **CRL.MC NO. 9487 OF 2023** **CRIME NO.206/2020 OF Anchalummoodu Police Station, Kollam AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT SC 927/2022 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS** **COURT/ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,KOLLAM** ## **PETITIONER(S)/2ND ACCUSED:** JYOTHISH CHANDRAN @ UNNIKUTTAN AGED 28 YEARS S/O.JAYACHANDRAN PILLAI, THEKKEVILA KIZHAKKATHIL VEETTIL, NJARAKKAL CHERRY, THRIKKARUVA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691602 BY ADVS. PRATHEESH.P ANJANA KANNATH ## **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & INJURED:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER ANCHALUMMOODU POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691601 3 ANISH AGED 26 YEARS S/O.GOPAKUMAR, SNEHA NAGAR-60, MUTHIRAETHU VEETTIL, MANGAD P.O, KOLLAM, PIN - 691015 4 VISHAK AGED 28 YEARS S/O.OMANAKUTTAN, VISHNU MANDHIRAM, SANKARA NAGAR-59, MANGAD P.O, KOLLAM, PIN - 691015 5 NANDHU AGED 26 YEARS S/O.SURESH, MAZHANELLIL KIZHAKKETHIL, SNEHA NAGAR-11, Crl.M.C.No.9487 of 2023 **==> picture [10 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** MANGAD P.O, KOLLAM, PIN - 691015 BY ADV. SRI. HRITHWIK C.S., PP SRI.A.MUHAMMED RAFI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.No.9487 of 2023 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** **------------------------------** **Crl.M.C.No.9487 of 2023** **---------------------------------------------Dated this the 01[st] day of December, 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 S.C.No.927/2022 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Kollam arising from Crime No.206/2020 of Anchalummoodu Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 308 r/w 34 IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that, on 28.02.2020 at about 12.45 PM while respondents 3 to 5 went for annadhanam at Thrikkadavoor temple, accused Nos. 1 and 2 because of sudden provocation attacked respondents 3 to Crl.M.C.No.9487 of 2023 4 5 with plastic stools and sticks and thereby they sustained injuries. 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 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 petitioner, victims and the Public Prosecutor and has also gone through the records including the affidavits filed by the victims. Crl.M.C.No.9487 of 2023 5 ## 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: _“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_ Crl.M.C.No.9487 of 2023 6 _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 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_ Crl.M.C.No.9487 of 2023 7 _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. All further proceedings against the petitioner in S.C.No.927/2022 on the Assistant Sessions Court, Kollam arising from Crime No.206/2020 of Anchalummoodu Police Station are quashed. Sd/- DM **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** Crl.M.C.No.9487 of 2023 8 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 9487/2023** ## PETITIONER ANNEXURES |ANNEXURE A1|THE CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR WITH FIS IN| |---|---| ||CRIME NO.206/2020 OF ANCHALUMMOODU| ||POLICE STATION DATED 28.2.2020| |ANNEXURE A2|THE CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT| ||DATED 28.8.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE SUB| ||INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANCHALUMMOODU| ||POLICE STATION IN CRIME NO.206/2020| |ANNEXURE A3|THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD| ||RESPONDENT REGARDING THE COMPROMISE| ||DATED 1.9.2023| |ANNEXURE A4|THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 4TH| ||RESPONDENT REGARDING THE COMPROMISE| ||DATED 1.9.2023| |ANNEXURE A5|THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 5TH| ||RESPONDENT REGARDING THE COMPROMISE| ||DATED 1.9.2023| |RESPONDENTS|EXHIBITS<br>: NIL| ||//TRUE COPY//<br>PA TO JUDGE|