High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeProsecution quashed; CC No. 204/2019 quashed; p...

Kishore Kumar, Jithin J. Nair and Nandu Prakash v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C.No.7433 of 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date
2023-09-29
Court Decision / Holding
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. All further proceedings in C.C.No.204/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – III, Attingal, arising from Crime No. 305/2017 of Chirayinkeezhu Police Station are quashed.
Final Disposition
Prosecution quashed; CC No. 204/2019 quashed; proceedings terminated.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Kishore Kumar
  • Jithin J. Nair
  • Nandu Prakash

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
  • Sub Inspector of Chirayinkeezzhu Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District
  • Shinoj @ Shinoj Sankar

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Adv. M.R. Sarin

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Adv. SMT. Rajitha V.K
  • • Sri. Hritwik CS PP

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 CrPC filed in the Kerala High Court by three accused challenging the order in CC No. 204/2019 arising from Crime No. 305/2017 of Chirayinkeezhu Police Station. The petitioners are charged with offences under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 IPC for allegedly wrongfully confining the victim and causing grievous hurt. The prosecution case is that the accused wrongfully confined the victim and assaulted him, resulting in grievous hurt. The petitioners contend that the dispute has been settled with the victim and the victim has filed an affidavit supporting the settlement, expressing no objection to quashing the proceedings. The Public Prosecutor initially expressed reservations about quashing solely on the basis of a settlement, but conceded that a settlement exists. The court examined the entire record and relied on the Supreme Court’s framework for exercising CrPC s.482 in private, non‑compoundable offences when the dispute is private and settled, with limitations for serious or public interest offences. The court cited State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (and the linked Gian Singh and Narinder Singh decisions) to justify quashing. After considering the facts and private nature of the dispute, the court allowed the CrMC and quashed all further proceedings in CC 204/2019, thereby ending the criminal matter between the parties.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973)Section 320 of IPC (Indian Penal Code)Sections 341, 323, 324, 326 read with Section 34 IPCCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Power under CrPC Section 482 to quash non‑compoundable offences in private disputes when settled (State of MP v. Laxmi Narayan and Others).
  • Limitations: not applicable to heinous/offences or offences under special statutes; requires assessment of the nature of the offence and evidence; may consider antecedents and conduct of the accused.
  • Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab underpinning the framework used in Laxmi Narayan for quashing in private settlements.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that the dispute among the parties has been settled amicably and the victim has filed an affidavit supporting the settlement, with no objection to quashing the prosecution. Relying on the Supreme Court guidance in Laxmi Narayan, Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, they contend that CrPC §482 can quash non‑compoundable offences where the matter is private and resolved between the parties, provided the offences are not highly serious or against public interest. They urge the court to exercise its inherent power to avoid continued harassment and to spare the parties from protracted litigation after settlement.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents acknowledge the settlement but caution that quashing solely on settlement may undermine justice for non‑compoundable offences. They emphasize that the offences are private in nature, yet the High Court must balance private settlement with social interest, considering whether the offences fall within the exceptions (heinous offences, serious offences, or offences under special statutes). They acknowledge the need for careful scrutiny and the requirement that such exercise should be undertaken after investigation and evidence collection, not during investigation.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others2019 (5) SCC 688PositiveCited as the controlling principle enabling quashing of non‑compoundable offences under CrPC s.482 when disputes are private and settled, subject to limitations.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another2012 (10) SCC 303PositiveCited by Laxmi Narayan; used to frame the conditions for exercise of CrPC s.482 in private settlements.
Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and another2014 (6) SCC 466PositiveCited by Laxmi Narayan; used to discuss the private nature of offences and the settlement-based quashing approach.

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 Kishore Kumar, Jithin J. Nair and Nandu Prakash 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 29[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 7TH ASWINA, 1945** **CRL.MC NO. 7433 OF 2023** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 204/2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - III, ATTINGAL (TEMPORARY)** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3:** 1 KISHORE KUMAR AGED 30 YEARS S/O SURESH KUMAR, CHILAKKUR HOUSE, NEAR VANKALAM MUKKU, MUTTAPALAM DESOM, AZHOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695305 2 JITHIN. J. NAIR AGED 27 YEARS S/O JAYACHANDRAN, ABHAYA HOUSE, NEAR EDAYILATHU TEMPLE, MUTTAPALAM DESOM, AZHOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695305 3 NANDU PRAKASH AGED 31 YEARS S/O PRAKASAN, NANDU BHAVAN, NEAR VANKALAM MUKKU, MUTTAPALAM DESOM, AZHOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695305 BY ADV M.R.SARIN ## **RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/STATE:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHIRAYINKEEZHU POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695304 3 SHINOJ @ SHINOJ SANKAR AGED 31 YEARS S/O JAYASANKAR, ABHAYAM, Crl.M.C.No.7433 of 2023 **==> picture [6 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** KOCHALUMMOODU, MUDAPURAM, KIZHUVILAM VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695304 BY ADV. SMT. RAJITHA V.K SRI.HRITWICK CS PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.No.7433 of 2023 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** **-----------------------------Crl.M.C.No.7433 of 2023** **---------------------------------------------Dated this the 29[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. Petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.204/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – III, Attingal arising from Crime No.305/2017 of Chirayinkeezhu Police Station. The above case is charge sheeted against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326 r/w 34 IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused Crl.M.C.No.7433 of 2023 4 wrongfully confined the victim and assaulted the victim and thereby the victim sustained grievous hurt. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners 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. 6. This Court has considered the submission of Crl.M.C.No.7433 of 2023 5 the petitioners, 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.7433 of 2023 6 _“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.7433 of 2023 7 _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 Crl.M.C.No.7433 of 2023 8 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 C.C.No.204/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – III, Attingal arising from Crime No.305/2017 of Chirayinkeezhu Police Station are quashed. DM **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** Crl.M.C.No.7433 of 2023 9 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7433/2023** PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. 305/2017 OF CHIRAYINKEEZHU POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REGISTERED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ANNEXURE A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC NO 204/2019 IN CRIME NO 305/2017 OF CHEERAYINKEEZHU POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL NOW PENDING BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST-CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT III, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ANNEXURE A3 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS :NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE