Rahul Krishna v. State of Kerala and Others

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH MONDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 8022 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 838/2015 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,NEDUMANGAD** ## **PETITIONER/ 7TH ACCUSED:** RAHUL KRISHNA AGED 26 YEARS, S/O S KRISHNAN, SARANALAYAM, KURUMBODU, ARUVIKKARA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695564 BY ADV S.NIKHIL SANKAR ## **RESPONDENTS/ STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/ CO INJURED:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 DIVYA AGED 39 YEARS, D/O RADHAKUMARI, REKHA MANDIRAM, AZHICODE P.O, NEDUMANGAD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695564 3 VISWA AGED 18 YEARS, S/O RAJESH, REKHA MANDIRAM,AZHICODE P.O,NEDUMANGAD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695564 Crl.M.C.No.8022 of 2022 -:2:- 4 SUDHEER KHAN AGED 42 YEARS, S/O KABEER, T.C. 9/359,KAMALESHWARAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695009 BY ADVS. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI SRI P G MANU-SR PP **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Crl.M.C.No.8022 of 2022 ## -:3:- ## **O R D E R** Dated this the 5[th] day of December, 2022 This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-1 Final Report in C.C.No.838/2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Nedumangad on the ground of settlement between the parties. 2. Altogether, there are eight accused. The petitioner is the accused No.7. The 2[nd] respondent is the de facto complainant and the 3rd and 4th respondents are the injured 3. The offences alleged against the accused are punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 452, 294(b), 341, 506(ii), 324 and 427 of Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of Arms Act. 4. The respondent Nos. 2 to 4 entered appearance through counsel. Affidavits sworn in by them are also produced **.** 5. I have heard Sri.S.Nikhil Sankar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.S.Mohammed Al Rafi the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and Sri. P.G. Manu, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Crl.M.C.No.8022 of 2022 -:4:- 6. The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit sworn in by the respondents 2 to 4 would show that the entire dispute between the accused No.7 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.7 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.7 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 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 Crl.M.C.No.8022 of 2022 ## -:5:- Court. 8. It is true that the settlement was arrived at between the 2[nd] respondent(de facto complainant) and the accused No.7 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 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**_ Crl.M.C.No.8022 of 2022 -:6:- _**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 to 4 submitted that as the dispute between the petitioner and the 2[nd] respondent is amicably settled, respondents 2 to 4 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 by quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure-1 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). Crl.M.C.No.8022 of 2022 -:7:- 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-1 Final Report in C.C.No.838/2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Nedumangad as against the petitioner/accused No.7 alone hereby stand quashed. **Sd/-** **DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE** ## **APA** Crl.M.C.No.8022 of 2022 ## -:8:- ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 8022/2022** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES** Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN C.C.NO:838/2015 OF J.F.C.M-II NEDUMANGAD ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO:3/2015 OF ARUVIKKARA POLICE STATION Annexure 2 AFFIDAVIT DULY SIGNED BY DE FACTO COMPLAINANT/2ND RESPONDENT AND ATTESTED BY THE NOTARY DATED 05/11/2022 SHOWING SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES WITH PETITIONER Annexure 3 AFFIDAVIT DULY SIGNED BY CO INJURED/3RD RESPONDENT AND ATTESTED BY THE NOTARY DATED 05/11/2022 SHOWING SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES WITH PETITIONER Annexure 4 AFFIDAVIT DULY SIGNED BY CO INJURED/4TH RESPONDENT AND ATTESTED BY THE NOTARY DATED 05/11/2022 SHOWING SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES WITH PETITIONER