Prince @ Tinu v. State of Kerala and Others

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH** **THURSDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 29TH POUSHA, 1944** **CRL.MC NO. 131 OF 2023** **(AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC NO.1617/2021 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, NEDUMANGAD)** ## **PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.2:** PRINCE @ TINU AGED 21 YEARS, USHAS VEERDU NEAR HOLLOW BRICK, THOPPUVILA, KALLARA KALLARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANATHAPURAM, PIN - 695608 BY ADVS. M.R.SARIN P.SANTHOSHKUMAR (KARUMKULAM) AJI S. SNEHA JOY M.R.SASITH ## **RESPONDENTS/ STATE/ DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031 2 MANIKANDAN ASARI AGED 51 YEARS S/O MADHAVAN ASARI , THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU, ENTHIMUKHAL EDATHARAMURI KUTHIRAKULAM PO, MANIKKAL VILLAGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 695615 3 SHYNI AGED 43 YEARS D/O SANTHA THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU, ENTHIMUKHAL , EDATHARAMURI KUTHIRAKULAM PO MANIKKAL VILLAGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT KERALA, PIN - 695615 BY ADV RAJITHA V.K SMT.T.V.NEEMA SR.P.P **CRL.MC NO. 131 of 2023** -:2:- **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** The name and address of the petitioner in Cause Title of the judgment dated 19/01/2023 is corrected and substituted as 'Aneesh, aged 39 years, S/o. Varijakshan, Karunya, Enthimukal, Edathara Muri, Kuthirakulam PO, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala – 695 615.' Sd/ASSISTANT REGISTRAR **CRL.MC NO. 131 of 2023** -:3:- ## O R D E R Dated this the 19th day of January, 2023 This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A2 Final Report in C.C.No.1617 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Nedumangad on the ground of settlement between the parties. 2. Altogether, there are two accused. It is submitted that the 1st accused has already been acquitted. The petitioner is the accused No.2. The 2[nd] respondent is the de facto complainant and the 3rd respondent is the injured 3. The offences alleged against the accused are punishable under Section Sections 323, 324, 354 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. 4. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 entered appearance through counsel. Affidavits sworn in by them are also produced. 5. I have heard Sri.M.R.Sarin, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt. Rajitha V.K., the learned counsel for the **CRL.MC NO. 131 of 2023** ## -:4:- respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Smt.T.V.Neema, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 6. The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit sworn in by the respondents 2 and 3 would show that the entire dispute between the accused No.2 with the de facto complainant has been amicably settled and the de facto complainant has decided not to proceed with the crime against the accused No.2 any further. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instruction, submits that the matter was inquired into through the investigating officer, and a statement of the de facto complainant was also recorded wherein he reported that the dispute with the accused No.2 was amicably settled. 7. The Apex Court in _**Gian Singh v. State of Punjab**_ [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)], _**Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others**_ [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and _**State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others**_ [(2019) 5 SCC 688] has held that the High Court invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C can quash criminal proceedings in relation to non-compoundable offence where the parties have settled the matter between **CRL.MC NO. 131 of 2023** ## -:5:- themselves notwithstanding the bar under S.320 of Cr.P.C. if it is warranted in the given facts and circumstances of the case or to ensure ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court. 8. It is true that the settlement was arrived at between the 2[nd] respondent (de facto complainant) and the accused No.2 alone, who is the petitioner. No settlement was arrived at with the remaining accused. Hence, the question is whether the FIR/Final Report against some of the accused alone could be quashed on the ground of settlement invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C. The Apex Court in _**Lovely Salhotra and Another v. State NCT of Delhi and Another**_ [(2018) 12 SCC 391] quashed the proceedings against one of the accused alone, invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C. That was a case where the High Court refused to quash the proceeding holding that the FIR cannot be quashed in part. True, in the said case, the Apex Court had taken into account the facts of the case that no cognizable offence was made out. The Apex Court, on facts, also found that no offence was made out against the appellant/accused therein. However, the principle **CRL.MC NO. 131 of 2023** -:6:- that could be deduced from the dictum laid down in the said decision is that it is not impermissible to quash the FIR _qua_ some of the accused alone, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. This Court in _**Sajeev & Another v. State of Kerala and Another**_ (2022 (3) KHC 69), has held that it is permissible to quash the proceedings against some of the accused alone on the ground of settlement depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. In these circumstances, I hold that it is permissible in law to quash the FIR or Final Report only against one or some of the accused on the ground of settlement, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C. 9. The learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 submitted that as the dispute between the petitioner and the 2[nd] respondent is amicably settled, respondents 2 and 3 have no objection whatsoever if the final report is quashed only against the petitioner. The dispute in the above case is purely personal in nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected **CRL.MC NO. 131 of 2023** ## -:7:- by quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A2 as against the petitioner. The offences in question do not fall within the category of offences prohibited for compounding in terms of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in _**Gian Singh**_ (supra), _**Narinder Singh**_ (supra) and _**Laxmi Narayan**_ (supra). For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that no purpose will be served in proceeding with the matter further. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A2 Final Report in C.C.No.1617 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Nedumangad as against the petitioner/accused No.2 alone hereby stand quashed Sd/- **DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE** APA **CRL.MC NO. 131 of 2023** -:8:- ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 131/2023** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES** Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.275/2010 VENJARUMOODU POLICE STATION Annexure A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CC NO. 1617/2021 PENDING BEFORE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I ,NEDUMANGAD Annexure A3 THE TRUE COPY OF JUDGEMENT IN CC NO. 146/2011 JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-1 NEDUMANGAD DATED ON 18. 11 2021 Annexure A4 AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Annexure A5 AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT