Ranjith V. L. @ Kannappan v. State of Kerala

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 4TH PHALGUNA, ``` ## **`1944`** ``` CRL.MC NO. 1752 OF 2022 ``` ## **`CRIME NO.1247 OF 2013 OF EZHUKONE POLICE STATION, KOLLAM`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` RANJITH. V.L @ KANNAPPAN AGED 31 YEARS S/O.VASUDEVAN, RANJITH BHAVANAM, PLAKKODE MURI, KAREEPRA VILLAGE, KOLLAM, PIN - 691509 BY ADVS. PRATHEESH.P ANJANA KANNATH T.S.SREEKUTTY ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2STATION HOUSE OFFICER EZHUKONE POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691505 3VISHNU AGED 32 YEARS S/O.VASUDHARAN, VISHNU MANDIRAM, NEAR NEDUMANCAVU CHC, VAKKANAD P.O, KAREEPRA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691509 4VALSALA AGED 50 YEARS W/O.VASUDHARAN, VISHNU MANDIRAM, NEAR NEDUMANCAVU CHC, VAKKANAD P.O, KAREEPRA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691509 BY ADVS. A.MUHAMMED RAFFI ``` Crl.M.C.No. 1752 of 2022 **==> picture [20 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` RENUKA VENU NIRMAL V NAIR(K/000492/2009) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI G SREEDHAR ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` Crl.M.C.No. 1752 of 2022 ..3.. ## **K.BABU, J** . -------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No. 1752 of 2022 --------------------------------------Dated this the 23[rd] day of February, 2023 ## **O R D E R** This Crl.M.C. is filed to quash Annexure -1 FIR, Annexure-2 Final Report and all further proceedings in S.C.No.1587 of 2019 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Kottarakkara. 2. The petitioner is accused No.2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 324, 307 and 34 of IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that on 26.07.2013 at about 9.30 a.m., the petitioner and the other accused voluntarily caused grevious hurt to respondent Nos. 3 and 4. It is further alleged that the petitioner and the other accused committed the above acts with the knowledge that if they by that act caused death, they would be guilty Crl.M.C.No. 1752 of 2022 **==> picture [20 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** of murder. 4. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, the victims, appeared through counsel. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and the learned Public Prosecutor. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are no sufficient materials to attract the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. The learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 submitted that they have no greivance against the petitioner herein and the other accused in this case. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed affidavits stating they are not intending to proceed with the matter further. 7. A counter case had also been registered by the Police as Crime No.1249 of 2013 in which respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were accused. Final report in the counter case which arose from Crime No.1249 of 2013 was quashed by this Court based on the settlement arrived at Crl.M.C.No. 1752 of 2022 **==> picture [20 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** between the parties. 8. In **Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab** [(2014) 6 SCC 466], the Apex Court held that the Court should not quash the proceedings wherein henious and serious offences like murder and rape are involoved. In **Narinder Singh** (Supra) the Apex Court held thus:- - “29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings: - 29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. - 29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: - (i) ends of justice, or Crl.M.C.No. 1752 of 2022 ..6.. (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. - 29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve 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. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute 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. - 29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. - 29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases. - 29.6. Offences under Section 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 Crl.M.C.No. 1752 of 2022 ..7.. 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 proving 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. 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 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. - 29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the Crl.M.C.No. 1752 of 2022 ..8.. other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime.” ## 9. In **Kapil Gupta v. State of NCT of Delhi** ## [2022 (8) SCC 341] referring to the law declared in ## **Narinder Singh** (Supra), the Apex Court held thus:- “13. It can thus be seen that this Court has clearly held that though the Court should be slow in quashing the proceedings wherein heinous and serious offences are involved, the High Court is not foreclosed from examining as to whether there exists material for incorporation of such an offence or as to whether there is sufficient evidence which if proved would lead to proving the charge for the offence charged with. The Court has also to take into consideration as to whether the settlement between the parties is going to result into harmony between them which may improve their mutual relationship.” Crl.M.C.No. 1752 of 2022 ..9.. 10. I have gone through the materials placed before the Court. The accident register cum wound certificate produced by the petitioner shows that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 suffered only minor injuries. There are no sufficient materials to show that the ingredients of the offence under Section 307 are attracted based on the overt act alleged against the petitioner. 11. As far as the offence under Section 324 is concerned, the settlement arrived at between the parties is sufficient for this Court to terminate the proceedings. As this Court has held that the offence under Section 307 is not attracted, the dispute becomes purely personal in nature and there is nothing to show that the public interest will be compromised by quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A1 FIR. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the view that no purpose will be served in proceeding with the matter further. Resultantly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-1 FIR, Annexure-2 Final Report and all further proceedings Crl.M.C.No. 1752 of 2022 **==> picture [26 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** in S.C.No.1587 of 2019 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Kottarakkara shall stand hereby quashed. Sd/- **K.BABU, JUDGE** kkj Crl.M.C.No. 1752 of 2022 ..11.. ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1752/2022`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure1THE CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR WITH FIS IN CRIME NO.1247/2013 OF EZHUKONE POLICE STATION DATED 26.7.2013 Annexure2THE CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT DATED 30.10.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EZHUKONE IN CRIME NO.1247/2013 Annexure3THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT REGARDING THE COMPROMISE DATED 20.11.2021 Annexure4THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT REGARDING THE COMPROMISE DATED 20.11.2021 ```