High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed

Pranav A., Adishn K., Deepur, Riyanswaraj v. State of Kerala and Abhinand P.T. and Karthik

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C No.5053 of 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date
2023-07-20
Court Decision / Holding
This petition is allowed. Annexure-I Final Report in Crime No.410/2022 of Kakkoor Police Station and all further proceedings against the petitioners pending as CC No.40/2023 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kozhikode, are quashed.
Final Disposition
Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Pranav A.
  • Adishn K.
  • Deepur
  • Riyanswaraj

Respondents

  • State of Kerala
  • Abhinand P.T
  • Karthik

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sharanshahier
  • • Rakhy Baby

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri Vipin Narayan

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Criminal Misc. Case arises under Section 482 CrPC before the Kerala High Court in respect of CC No.40/2023 pending in the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class‑III Kozhikode. The petition seeks quashing of proceedings in a case where the petitioners (Accused Nos.1 to 4) are alleged to have, in common intention, restrained and assaulted the respondents on 23.11.2022, causing injuries; the offences involved are 341, 323, 324, and 326 IPC read with 34. The petition contends that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the respondents do not wish to pursue the case further. The Public Prosecutor, while expressing reservations about quashing mere on the basis of settlement, concedes there are no other serious crimes against the petitioners. The Court cites State of MP v. Laxmi Narayan and the earlier Gian Singh and Narinder Singh decisions to lay down the constitutional principle that Section 482 CrPC can quash non‑compoundable offences—primarily private, civil in character—when the entire dispute has been settled, provided the offence is not of a heinous nature or under special statutes. After weighing the gravity of the offence, injuries, antecedents, and the amicable settlement, the Court holds that quashing would promote peace and the ends of justice. The petition is allowed and the final report and all further proceedings are quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)Section 320 CrPCSection 341 IPCSection 323 IPCSection 324 IPCSection 326 r/w Section 34 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings
  • Quashing non‑compoundable offences where disputes are private, civil in character, and settled
  • Offences under 307 IPC and the Arms Act are not to be quashed as they are serious/offense against society
  • Ends of justice principle in quashing proceedings
  • Consideration of antecedents and conduct of the accused in quashing exercises

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that the dispute has been amicably settled and the respondents do not wish to pursue the prosecution; the impugned proceedings are private in nature about a civil-ish dispute, with no ongoing grievances or other crimes; the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash, recording the settlement, to restore peace and end a dispute that has become non‑adversarial. The parties have no interest in continuing litigation and a quash would conserve judicial time and resources while not affecting public interest. The gravamen of the offences (Sections 341, 323, 324, 326 IPC) is not of a heinous nature, and there is no evidence of serious criminal activity by the petitioners beyond this incident.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor submits that quashing solely on the basis of a settlement is not automatic; the court must assess whether the offences are non‑compoundable and private, and whether continuing proceedings would be a disproportionate response to a settled dispute. He notes the seriousness of the alleged offences and stresses the need to ensure that the decision does not undermine public order or safety; he concedes no other serious criminal history against the petitioners but urges careful scrutiny of the facts before invoking extraordinary powers under Section 482 CrPC.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab2 (2012) 10 SCC 303PositiveCited and relied upon to formulate the principle that the High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash non‑compoundable private offences when the entire dispute is settled.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab3 2014 (6) SCC 466PositiveCited as part of the foundational framework guiding quashing in private, non‑compoundable offences; used to harmonize with the settled dispute scenario.
State of MP v. Laxmi Narayan1 [(2019) 5 SCC 688]PositiveUsed as the summarizing decision that consolidates the law guiding Section 482 CrPC quashing in contexts of private disputes and settlements; anchors the present reasoning.

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 Pranav A., Adishn K., Deepur, Riyanswaraj v. State of Kerala and Abhinand P.T. and Karthik and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

Crl.M.C No.5053 of 2023 1 ``` INTHEHIGHCOURTOFKERALAATERNAKULAM PRESENT THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV THURSDAY,THE20[TH]DAYOFJULY2023/29THASHADHA,1945 CRL.MCNO.5053OF2023 CC40/2023OFJUDICIALMAGISTRATEOFFIRSTCLASS -III,KOZHIKODE PETITIONERS/ACCUSEDNOS.1TO4: ``` ``` 1PRANAV.A AGED20YEARS S/OPRASANTH,PRANAVHOUSE,KARUVASHERRY - KARAPARAMB,KOZHIKODE,PIN673010 2ADISHN.K AGED20YEARS S/OPRABHEESHAN,NABOODIKANDIHOUSE,PANGAD, - BALLUSHERRY,KOZHIKODE,PIN673612 3DEEPUR AGED20YEARS S/OSUDHEESH,RAMATHHOUSE,KARUVATOOR,KOZHIKODE, - PIN673611 4RIYANSWARAJ AGED19YEARS S/ORAMCHANDRAN,THAYANAHOUSE,VELAM,KURICHIKAM - KOZHIKODE,PIN673001 BYADVS. SHARANSHAHIER RAKHYBABY ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANTS:`** ``` 1STATEOFKERALA REPRESENTEDPUBLICPROSECUTOR,HIGHCOURTOF - KERALA,ERNAKULAM,PIN682031 2ABHINANDP.T AGED26YEARS,S/OSHIVANANDAN,KOODATHUMPOYIL, MAKKADA,ELATHOOR,KOZHIKODECITY,KERALA, ``` Crl.M.C No.5053 of 2023 2 ``` - PIN673001 ``` ``` 3KARTHIK AGED19YEARS,S/OJAYARAJAN,PALAKULLARAGRA, - NEELISHAWARAM,MOOTHERI,PIN673582 ``` ``` SRI.VIPINNARAYAN,SR.PUBLICPROSECUTOR ``` ``` THISCRIMINALMISC.CASEHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION ON20.07.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYPASSEDTHE FOLLOWING: ``` Crl.M.C No.5053 of 2023 3 ## **ORDER** This petition is filed invoking the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for the sake of brevity). 2. The petitioners herein are the accused in CC.No.40 of 2023 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-III, Kozhikode. In the said case, they are accused of committing offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. 3. The prosecution allegation, as borne out from the records, are as under: On 23.11.2022 at about 4.30 p.m., the petitioners herein, in furtherance of their common intention, wrongfully restrained the party respondents and attacked them, causing injuries. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties have settled their dispute and do not wish to pursue the prosecution proceedings. He relies on the affidavit filed by the party respondents in support of his contention. Counsel argues that if the proceedings are terminated, with the recording of the amicable settlement, the parties can move forward in an atmosphere of peace and mutual respect. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, has expressed Crl.M.C No.5053 of 2023 4 reservations about quashing the proceedings solely on the basis of the settlement. He argues that the facts and circumstances may not warrant the exercise of the court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, it is fairly submitted that there have been no other crimes of serious nature registered against the petitioners to date. It is further submitted that the statements of the party respondents have been recorded, and they have unequivocally stated that they do not have any lasting grievances. 6. I have considered the submissions and have gone through the records. 7. In **State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan,[1]** , a three-judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has summarized the law as laid down in **Gian** **Singh v. State of Punjab[2]** , **Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab[3]** and in subsequent cases. It was laid down as under: 15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under: - 15.1. That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or > 2 (2012) 10 SCC 303 > 3 2014 (6) SCC 466 > 1 [(2019) 5 SCC 688] Crl.M.C No.5053 of 2023 5 arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves; - 15.2. 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; - 15.3. Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like the 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; - 15.4. Offences under Section 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 Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act, etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 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 Section 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 Section 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 Section 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/delicate 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 Crl.M.C No.5053 of 2023 6 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 paras 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; - 15.5. While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offenses, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impact 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. Having carefully analyzed the prayer sought for in the light of the principles laid down as above and also the nature of the allegations, the gravity of the offense, the severity of injuries inflicted, antecedents of the accused, and the amicable relationship that now exists between the parties, I am of the considered opinion that quashing the proceedings on the basis of the settlement will not have any adverse impact on society. In fact, it would only serve to bring about peace and secure the ends of justice. Additionally, persisting with the prosecution would be a waste of time, as the prospects of conviction are bleak. In the light of all of the relevant Crl.M.C No.5053 of 2023 7 circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court would be well justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings. This petition is allowed. Annexure-I Final Report in Crime No.410/2022 of Kakkoor Police Station and all further proceedings against the petitioners pending as C.C.No.40/2023 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-III, Kozhikode, are quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE** IAP Crl.M.C No.5053 of 2023 8 ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5053/2023`** ``` PETITIONERS’ANNEXURES: ``` ``` Annexure1ACERTIFIEDCOPYOFTHEFINALREPORT DATED31.12.2022CRIMENO.0410/2022OF KAKKOORPOLICESTATION,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT ``` ``` Annexure2AFFIDAVITFILEDBYTHE2NDRESPONDENT DATED20/6/2023 ``` ``` Annexure3AFFIDAVITFILEDBYTHE3RDRESPONDENT DATED20/6/2023 ```