Rajeshmon K.V. and others v. State of Kerala and others

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 3RD ASWINA, 1945 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 6087 OF 2021 ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** - `1 RAJESHMON K.V. AGED 38 YEARS S/O.VELAYUDHAN, KARIKKAL HOUSE, VENGOLA KARA, ARAYKKAPADY, PERUMBAVOOR.` - `2 JITHIN SURENDRAN AGED 26 YEARS S/O.SURENDRAN, CHIRAYIL HOUSE, VALIYAKULAM, VENGOLA KARA, ARAYKKAPPADY, PERUMBAVOOR.` - `3 DIVESH M.V. AGED 29 YEARS S/O.VELAPPAN, METHANATH PARAMBU, VALIYAKULAM KARA, VENGOLA, PERUMBAVOOR.` - `4 ANEESH M.K. AGED 30 YEARS S/O.KUNJUKURUMBAN, METHANATH PARAMBIL, VENGOLA KARA, ARAYKKAPADY, PERUMBAVOOR.` - `5 MUNEER AGED 28 YEARS S/O.ABDU, ERUMBALASSERY VEEDU, MANNARKKAD KARA, PALAKKAD.` - `6 JIBIN PRAKASH AGED 24 YEARS S/O.PRAKASH, CHAYATTU HOUSE, EECHARAN KAVALA BHAGAM, VENGOLA KARA, ARAYKKAPPADY, PERUMBAVOOR.` - `7 BIBIN PRAKASH AGED 31 YEARS S/O.PRAKLASH, CHAYATTU HOUSE, EECHARAN KAVALA BHAGAM, VENGOLA KARA, ARAYKKAPADY, PERUMBAVOOR.` - `8 ANOOP S/O.SIVAN, PARAYKKAPPADY HOUSE, EECHARAN KAVALA BHAGAM, VENGOLA KARA, ARAYKKAPADY, PERUMBAVOOR.` - `9 BONY ELDOSE AGED 24 YEARS S/O.ELDOSE, NARANGATHOTTATHIL HOUSE,VENGOLA KARA, ARAYKKAPPADY, PERUMBAVOOR.` - `10 AKHIL RAMACHANDRAN AGED 25 YEARS S/O.RAMACHANDRAN, CHERIYELIPPADY HOUSE, EECHARAN KAVALA, VENGOLA KARA, ARAYKKAPADY, KUNNATHUNADU` Crl.M.C. No. 6087 of 2021 and Crl.M.C 6093 of 2021 2 ``` TALUK, PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADVS. HARIKRISHNAN V.A Divya B Nair U.S.SARITHA VISAKH K.P ANISHA M. KRISHNENDHU V.B ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** - `1 STATE OF KERALA PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI - 31.` - `2 SIDHARTH AGED 18 YEARS S/O.M.C.APPU, METHANATH PARAMBIL, VENGOLA KARA, ARAYKKAPADY, PERUMBAVOOR.` - `3 VISHNU SURESH AGED 25 YEARS S/O.SURESH C.S., CHEYATTU HOUSE, WEST VENGOLA, VALIYAKULAM, ARACKAPEDY, PERUMBAVOOR.` - `4 SURESH C.S. AGED 53 YEARS S/O.GOPALAN, CHEYATTU HOUSE, WEST VENGOLA, VALIYAKULAM, ARACKAPEDY, PERUMBAVOOR.` - `5 VIVEK SURESH S/O.SURESH C.S., CHEYATTU HOUSE, WEST VENGOLA, VALIYAKULAM, ARACKAPEDY, PERUMBAVOOR.` - `6 AKHIL V.R. AGED 29 YEARS S/O.RAJESH KUMAR, VADAKKUNNATH VEEDU, AIMURI KARA, KOOVAPPADY, PERUMBAVOOR.` - `7 VISHNU BALAKRISHNAN AGED 28 YEARS` - `S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, MADHAVA MANDIRAM, PERUMBAVOOR KARA, PERUMBAVOOR.` - `8 GIREESH THAMBI AGED 29 YEARS S/O.THAMBI, ELAMTHURUTHI VEETTIL, ARACKAPEDY VILLAGE, PERUMBAVOOR.` - `9 AMBADY AGED 28 YEARS S/O.JALAJAN, VAZHAYIL HOUSE, VALIYAKULAM, VENGOLA KARA, ARAYKKAPPADY, PERUMBAVOOR.` - `10 LALMON T.V. AGED 28 YEARS S/O.VINAYAN A.A., THURUTHUMMALI HOUSE, WEST` Crl.M.C. No. 6087 of 2021 and Crl.M.C 6093 of 2021 3 ``` VENGOLA P.O.,ECHARANKAVALA, PERUMBAVOOR - 683 556. ``` ``` BY ADVS. E.G.REJITHA S.SUDHA (THAMARASSERY) ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` SREEJA. V PP E.G REGITHA ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.09.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.6093/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` Crl.M.C. No. 6087 of 2021 and Crl.M.C 6093 of 2021 4 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 3RD ASWINA, 1945 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 6093 OF 2021 ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** - `1 SURESH C.S AGED 53 YEARS S/O. GOPALAN, CHEYATTU HOUSE, WEST VENGOLA, VALIYAKULAM, ARACKAPEDY,PERUMBAVOOR.` - `2 VISHNU SURESH AGED 25 YEARS S/O. SURESH C.S, CHEYATTU HOUSE, WEST VENGOLA, VALIYAKULAM, ARACKAPEDY,PERUMBAVOOR.` - `3 GIREESH THAMBI AGED 29 YEARS S/O. THAMBI, ELAMTHURUTHI VEETTIL, ARACKAPEDY VILLAGE, PERUMBAVOOR` - `4 LALMON T.V AGED 27 YEARS S/O. VINAYAN A.A, THURUTHUMMALI HOUSE, WEST VENGOLA P.O, ECHARAN KAVALA, PERUMBAVOOR 683556` - `5 AMBADY AGED 28 YEARS S/O. JALAJAN, VAZHAYIL HOUSE, VALIYAKULAM, VENGOLA KARA, ARAYKKAPPADY, PERUMBAVOOR` - `6 AKHIL V.R AGED 29 YEARS S/O. RAJESH KUMAR, VADAKKUNNATH HOUSE, AIIMURI KARA, KOOVAPPADY VILLAGE, PEERUMBAVOOR BY ADVS. E.G.REJITHA S.SUDHA (THAMARASSERY)(K/52/2010)` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** - `1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PIN 682031` - `2 NIKHIL CHANDRAN AGED 25 YEARS` Crl.M.C. No. 6087 of 2021 and Crl.M.C 6093 of 2021 5 ``` S/O. CHANDRAN,METHANATH PARAMBIL, VENGOLA KARA, ARAYKKAPADY,PERUMBAVOOR. PIN 683542 ``` ``` 3BONY ELDOSE AGED 24 YEARS S/O. ELDOSE, NARANGATHOTTATHIL HOUSE, VENGOLA KARA, ARAYKKAPADY, PEERUMBAVOOR. PIN 683542 4RAJESHMON K.V AGED 38 YEARS S/O. VELAYUDHAN, KARIKKAL HOUSE VENGOLA, KARA, ARAYKKAPADY,PERUMBAVOOR. PIN 683542 5JITHIN SURENDRAN S/O. SURENDRAN,CHIRAYIL HOUSE, VALIYAKULAM, VENGOLA KARA, ARAYKKAPADY, PERUMBAVOOR. PIN 683542 6ANEESH M.K AGED 30 YEARS S/O.KUNJUKURUMBAN,METHANATH PARAMBIL, VENGOLA KARA, ARAYKKAPADY, PERUMBAVOOR.PIN 683542 BY ADVS. HARIKRISHNAN V.A Divya B Nair ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.09.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.6087/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` Crl.M.C. No. 6087 of 2021 and Crl.M.C 6093 of 2021 6 **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------Crl.M.C. No. 6087 of 2021 and Crl.M.C 6093 of 2021 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 25[th] day of September, 2023** ## **O R D E R** This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for the sake of brevity). 2. These two cases are connected and therefore I am disposing of these case by common order. Crl.M.C No. 6087/2021 is filed to quash the proceedings in crime No. 238/2020 of Perumbavoor Police Station and Crl.M.C No. 6093/2021 is filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 237/2020 of Permbavoor Police Station. It is submitted that this is a case and counter case and the entire dispute is settled between the parties. 3. 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 victims in support of his contention. The counsel appearing for the victims also submitted that the Crl.M.C. No. 6087 of 2021 and Crl.M.C 6093 of 2021 7 matter is settled and the victims have no objection in quashing the prosecution. 4. 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. This Court has considered the submission of the petitioner, victims and the Public Prosecutor and has also gone through the records including the affidavits filed by the victims. 6. 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 Crl.M.C. No. 6087 of 2021 and Crl.M.C 6093 of 2021 8 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 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._ Crl.M.C. No. 6087 of 2021 and Crl.M.C 6093 of 2021 9 _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 non- compoundable 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 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.”_ Crl.M.C. No. 6087 of 2021 and Crl.M.C 6093 of 2021 10 _7._ 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, these Criminal Miscellaneous case is allowed in the following manner. All further proceedings in crime No. 238/2020 of Perumbavoor Police Station involved in Crl.M.C No. 6087/2021 are quashed. All further proceedings in Crime No. 237/2020 of Permbavoor Police Station in Crl.M.C 6093/2021 are also quashed. **Sd/-** **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** Asw Crl.M.C. No. 6087 of 2021 and Crl.M.C 6093 of 2021 11 ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6087/2021`** ## `PETITIONER ANNEXURES` ``` Annexure A1THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.238/2020 OF PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION. Annexure A2THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANTS ALONG WITH THE PETITIONERS ON 20/10/2021. ``` Crl.M.C. No. 6087 of 2021 and Crl.M.C 6093 of 2021 12 ## **`A PPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6093/2021`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 237/2020 OF PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION Annexure A2THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINTS ALONG WITH THE PETITIONERS ON 20-10-2021 ```