Lijin R Das and Others v State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 23TH BHADRA, 1945** **CRL.MC NO. 6139 OF 2023 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 107/2023 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,PATHANAMTHITTA** ## **PETITIONERS:** 1 LIJIN R DAS, AGED 29 YEARS S/O. NJANADAS THADATHARIKKATH HOUSE, PANNIYODE P.O., VEERANIKKAVU VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 695575 2 ANEESH AGED 39 YEARS S/O. DHARMARAJAN, PULATHARAYIL HOUSE, KOZHIKODE, SVM P.O., AYENI VELIKULANGARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690518 3 ALTHAF AGED 22 YEARS S/O. ABDUL KHADER, CHETTUKUDIL HOUSE, KOTTIKKAL, AZHIKODE MURI, AZHIKODE VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680666 4 BINU KUMAR AGED 46 YEARS S/O. THANKAPPAN, SHANTHABHAVAN HOUSE, PLAVILA, KOVALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695527 5 JOHNSON JOHN AGED 22 YEARS S/O. JOHN, NEDUMANNIL HOUSE, MAARIKKAL, MALLAPPALLY EAST P.O., MALLAPPALLY VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 689584 6 VISHNU AGED 26 YEARS S/O. BALAN, PAMBAKKATTU LAKHSAM VEEDU COLONY HOUSE, CHEKKULAM, THEKKEMALA P.O., KOZHENCHERRY VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689654 7 AJEESH AGED 26 YEARS S/O. VIJAYAN, VALLANIYAL HOUSE, ANCHUTHODU, NARANGANAM **CRL.MC NO. 6139 OF 2023** **2** WEST P.O., NARANGANAM VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 689642 8 JINU AGED 27 YEARS S/O. SATHEESH KUMAR, KUZHIMANNADI HOUSE, NEYYAR DAM P.O., KALLIKKADU VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695572 9 EBY MATHEW AGED 25 YEARS S/O. MATHEW ABRAHAM, PARAYIL HOUSE, KEEZHIKKARA P.O., KOZHENCHERRY VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 689641 10 AKHIL OMANAKKUTTAN AGED 25 YEARS S/O. OMANAKKUTTAN, PARAYIL HOUSE, THEKKEMALA P.O., KOZHENCHERRY VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689654 BY ADVS. MATHEW KURIAKOSE K.R.ARUN T.G.SUNIL (PERUMBAVOOR) C.N.PRAKASH J.KRISHNAKUMAR (ADOOR) SHAJI P.K. ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 STATE OF KERALA (CRIME NO. 3/2023 OF ARANMULA POLICE STATION), REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 SACHU MOHAN AGED 27 YEARS S/O. MOHAN, SACHU BHAVAN, VALLIKKUNNAM, KADAVANAL P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT., PIN - 690501 3 SUJEESH KUMAR AGED 34 YEARS S/O. SURENDRAN, SURESH BHAVANAM, MALAMELCHANDA, **CRL.MC NO. 6139 OF 2023** **3** PUTHENCHANDA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DIST., PIN - 690501 4 MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA AGED 21 YEARS S/O. ABDUL MANAF, ULLAYIL HOUSE, MELATTOOR, PATHIRIKKODE P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 679326 5 ALBI AGED 19 YEARS S/O. THOMAS, CHERUVIL PLAKKOOTTATHIL HOUSE, THADIYOOR P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT., PIN - 689545 6 RATHEESH AGED 38 YEARS S/O. NARAYANAN NAIR, MULLASSERIYIL HOUSE, BANTHADUKKA MANADUKKAM P.O., KAZARGODE DISTRICT., PIN - 671315 BY ADV MONI GEORGE ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SANAL P RAJ, PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: **CRL.MC NO. 6139 OF 2023** **4** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** ## **-------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.6139 of 2023** **---------------------------------------------Dated this the 14[th] day of September, 2023** ## **O R D E R** 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 CC No.107 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Pathanamthitta. Above case is registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 341, 323, 324, 147 read with 149 of IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that the petitioners formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and trespassed into the victims' place and committed mischief and assaulted them. 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 victims in support of his contention. The counsel appearing for the victims also submitted that the matter is settled and the victims **CRL.MC NO. 6139 OF 2023** **5** 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 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,_ **CRL.MC NO. 6139 OF 2023** **6** _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_ **CRL.MC NO. 6139 OF 2023** **7** _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 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.”_ **CRL.MC NO. 6139 OF 2023** **8** 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 in CC No.107 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Pathanamthitta arising from Crime No.3/2023 of Aranmula Police Station are quashed. Sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** SVP **CRL.MC NO. 6139 OF 2023** **9** ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6139/2023** PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 3/2023 OF ARANMULA POLICE STATION IN PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT Annexure B ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19.07.2023 Annexure C ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 19.07.2023 Annexure D ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 19.07.2023 Annexure E ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 19.07.2023 Annexure F ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 19.07.2023