null

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 17TH KARTHIKA, ``` ## **`1945`** ## **`CRL.MC NO. 8260 OF 2023`** ``` CRIME NO.92/2010 OF Kunnicode Police Station, Kollam AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC 512/2010 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS ``` ## **`COURT, KOLLAM`** ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3:`** - `1 RAJENDRAN NAIR, AGED 71 YEARS, S/O NARAYANAN NAIR, RAJENDRA VILASOM, KARIYARA MURI, VILAKKUDI VILLAGE, PUNALUR THALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691332` - `2 SANTHOSH, S/O VIKRAMAN PILLAI THOTTATHIL PUTHEN VEEDU BHARANIKAV MURI PUNALUR VILLAGE KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691331` ``` 3AJITH R.NAIR, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O RAJENDRAN NAIR, SURENDRA VILASAM, KARIYARA MURI, VILAKKUDI VILLAGE, PUNALUR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691332 BY ADVS. R.SURAJ KUMAR SUNIL J.CHAKKALACKAL SAJITH C.GEORGE ANJANA R.S. SNEHA RAVEENDRAN FARZA N. ASHNA S. ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS /STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:`** - `1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031` - `2 MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI, AGED 59 YEARS S/O RAGHAVAN PILLAI, CHEMPAKASSERIL, KARIYARA MURI, VILAKKUDI VILLAGE, PUNNALUR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691332` 2 Crl.M.C.8260/2023 ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` SRI MP PRASANTH , PP BY ADV Suraj Kumar R ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 3 Crl.M.C.8260/2023 **P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.8260 of 2023 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 8[th] day of November, 2023** ## **ORDER** This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners arising from Crime No.92/2010 of Kunnikodu Police Station. 2. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the Assistant Sessions Court, Punalur in S.C.No.512/2010 arising from the above crime and the petitioners filed an appeal against the conviction and sentence before the Sessions Court, Kollam and the appeal is pending before the Sessions Court, Kollam as Crl.Appeal No.115/2020. Now, the dispute between the petitioners and the defacto complainant are settled. The petitioners counsel submits that the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioners may be quashed in the light of the judgment of this Court in **Biju Eappen v. State of Kerala and Another [2010(1) KHC 916]** . 3. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. 4 Crl.M.C.8260/2023 4. In **Biju Eappen’** s case (supra), the trial court convicted the accused and during the pendency of the appeal, parties entered into a compromise settling all disputes between them. Whether the proceedings can be quashed exercising the power under section 482 Cr.P.C in such situation was considered by this Court. This Court allowed that prayer and set aside the conviction and sentence. In the light of the above dictum and also in the light of the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in **Ramgopal and Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another [2021 KHC 6543]** , I think the proceedings can be quashed in the light of the settlement. 5. 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. 6. 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. 5 Crl.M.C.8260/2023 7. This Court has considered the submission of the petitioners, victim and the Public Prosecutor and has also gone through the records including the affidavit filed by the victim. 8. 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 offences are not private in_ 6 Crl.M.C.8260/2023 _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_ 7 Crl.M.C.8260/2023 _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.”_ 9. 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 conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioners based on Annexure-A2 judgment is set aside and Crl.Appeal No.115/2020 on the file of Sessions Court, Kollam as well as the entire proceedings in S.C.No.512/2010 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Punalur arising from Crime No.92/2010 of Kunnikode Police Station as against the petitioners are quashed. Sd/- ## **P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** Sbna/ 8 Crl.M.C.8260/2023 ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 8260/2023`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ``` ``` Annexure A1THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 04.03.2023 IN SESSION CASE NO. 512/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, PUNALUR Annexure A2THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN SC NO. 512/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT PUNALUR DATED 17/11/2020 ``` ``` Annexure A3THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 25.08.2023 ```