Prajith M.P. and Others v. State of Kerala and Others

## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ## `THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.` ``` TUESDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF MAY 2023 / 19TH VAISAKHA, 1945 ``` ## `CRL.MC NO. 3464 OF 2023` ``` IN SC 639/2015 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - IV, ``` ## `THALASSERY` ``` IN CRIME NO.592/2014 OF EDAKKAD POLICE STATION, KANNUR. ``` ## `PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 15:` - `1 PRAJITH M.P., AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.KANARAN, PONNAKKARI HOUSE, NEAR VALLYAPALLY, VALLYAPALLY P.O, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN - 673101` - `2 PRAYAG.M.P. AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.MANOHARAN, VARIYAYIL HOUSE, CHANYANDOOR AMSOM, CHAMPAD P.O., CHAMPAD, KANNUR DISTRICT.,PIN - 670694` - `3 MIDHUN.K, AGED 29 YEARS S/O PREMAN, KANAYANTAVIDA HOUSE, POOKOM, P.O.PANOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670692` - `4 VISHNU VINOD.E, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O VINODHAN, VISHWADEEPAM HOUSE, CHERUMAVILAYI, P.O.MAVILAYI, KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670622` - `5 AKSHAY.M, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.SAJEENDRAN, SUSHA NIVAS, MELUR, MELUR.P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670661` - `6 NIVEDH.T.P., AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. PADMANABHAN, THAMPRANI POYIL HOUSE, PERLASSERY, P.O.MUNDALUR, KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670622` - `7 SHAMAL.P.P., AGED 29 YEARS, S/O MANOHARAN, VALIYAKANDIYIL HOUSE, ANIYARAM P.O, PERINGALAM DESOM, KADAVATHUR, KANNUR DISTRICT.,PIN - 670672` Crl.M.C.No.3464/2023 : 2 : - `8 SHARATH.T., AGED 29 YEARS,` ``` S/O.RAGHAVAN, MOTTAMMAL HOUSE, PANDOTHERI, KADACHIRA P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670621 ``` - `9 ANURAG.C.K. AGED 29 YEARS` - `S/O. SUDHAKARAN CHALIL KUNNUPURATH HOUSE, IVARKKULAM, NEAR U.P.SCHOOL, MAVILAI P.O., MAVILAYI, KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670622` - `10 RISHIKESH BABU, AGED 29 YEARS S/O BABU, PUTHANPURAYIL HOUSE, VELLAD P.O, ALAKKODE, KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670571` - `11 SANAL RAJ.P.K., AGED 30 YEARS,` ``` S/O V.K RAJU, V.K.HOUSE, AMBILODE, PORAKKULAM, NIRMALAGIRI. P.O KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670701 ``` ``` 12ABHIJITH.K., AGED 29 YEARS, ``` - `S/O. SADHASIVAN NIDUMPRATHKANDIYIL HOUSE, KAVIYOOR, CHOKLI P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670672` - `13 MIDHUN.A.K. AGED 30 YEARS,` ``` S/O PRADEEPAN, VIGHNESHWARA HOUSE, CHERUPAZHASSI.P.O., PERUMANCHERY, KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670601 ``` - `14 PRAYAG.C., AGED 29 YEARS,` ``` S/O CHANDRAN K.K, VADAKKAYIL HOUSE, CHERIKKAL, PINARAYI.P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670741 ``` ``` 15CHETHAS.M., AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. MANOHARAN, KUNNUMPURATH HOUSE, THALASSERY, VADAKKUMBAD.P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670105 ``` ``` BY ADVS.M.SASINDRAN ``` ``` P.K.SUBHASH ``` Crl.M.C.No.3464/2023 : 3 : ## `RESPONDENTS/ STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:` - `1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031` - `2 FARHAN.P.V. AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL NAZAR, RESIDING AT KADEEJAS HOUSE, MUNDERI AMSOM, MUNDERI MOTTA, P.O.MUNDERI, KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670591` - `3 ASWIN SUDHAKAR AGED 29 YEARS S/O. SUDHAKARAN, RESIDING AT S.K.NIVAS, MADHUKKOTH, P.O. VARAM, KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670594` - `4 KALLADA PURUSHOTHAMAN AGED 76 YEARS S/O. KANNAN, RESIDING AT KALLADA HOUSE, CHALA, PADINHAREKKARA, NEAR GOVT. POLYTECHNIC, THOTTADA, P.O.THOTTADA, KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670007` ``` BY ADV SIDHARTH P SASI ``` ## `OTHER PRESENT:` ``` NOUSHAD K A,PP ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` Crl.M.C.No.3464/2023 : 4 : Dated this the 9[th] day of May,2023 ## **O R D E R** The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.592/2014 of Edakkad Police Station, Kannur District, which is now pending as S.C.No.639/2015 of the file of the Additional District & Sessions Judge-IV, Thalassery. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have settled the matter. The de facto complainants are arrayed as respondents 2, 3 & 4 to this petition. It is submitted that the petitioners are students and since the matter has been settled between the parties, the proceedings against the petitioners may be quashed, in exercise of the jurisdiction vested under this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, ‘Cr.P.C.). 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relies on the judgment of this Court in **State** Crl.M.C.No.3464/2023 : 5 : **of Mandhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan & Ors.** [2019(2) KHC 190] which in turn refers to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in **Nairinder Singh v. State of Punjab** [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and contends that even the offence under Section 307 IPC can be quashed, if this Court comes to the conclusion that there are no materials to attract Section 307 IPC. Specific reference is made to paragraph No.29.6 of **Nairinder Singh** ## (supra) where it is held as follows: “29.6. Offences under S.307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. 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 providing 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. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of Crl.M.C.No.3464/2023 : 6 : conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.” It is also submitted that the nature of injuries in this case would clearly indicate that the offence under Section 307 IPC is not attracted. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that there is no material to hold that the offence under Section 307 IPC had been incorrectly incorporated against the petitioners. It is submitted that in such circumstances, this Court should not exercise the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings, on the basis of settlement. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainants, viz., respondents 2, 3 & 4 would submit that the entire issues between the petitioners and Crl.M.C.No.3464/2023 : 7 : respondents 2, 3 & 4 stand settled and that the de facto complainants have no objection in the proceedings being quashed. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2, 3 & 4, I am of the view that the petitioners can be granted relief. The wound certificate [a copy of which has been made available for my perusal by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners] would indicate that the wounds suffered by the de facto complainants will not attract the offence under Section 307 IPC. Therefore, I am inclined to quash the proceedings notwithstanding the fact the offence under Section 307 IPC is alleged against the petitioners. Accordingly, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings in S.C.No.639/2015 of the file of the Crl.M.C.No.3464/2023 : 8 : Additional District & Sessions Judge-IV, Thalassery, as against the petitioners will stand quashed. Sd/- ## **GOPINATH P,JUDGE** DST/09.05.23 //True copy/ P.A.To Judge Crl.M.C.No.3464/2023 : 9 : ## `APPENDIX` ## `PETITIONER ANNEXURES` ``` ANNEXURE A1 ``` ``` CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.592/2014 OF EDAKKAD POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT ``` ``` ANNEXURE AIITRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 ENDORSING THE FACTUM OF COMPOUNDING OF THE ABOVE SAID OFFENCES AND THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES ``` ``` ANNEXURE AIIITRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 ENDORSING THE FACTUM OF COMPOUNDING OF THE ABOVE SAID OFFENCES AND THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES ``` ``` ANNEXURE AIVTRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 ENDORSING THE FACTUM OF COMPOUNDING OF THE ABOVE SAID OFFENCES AND THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES ``` ``` RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS: ```