Rashy S. Indran v. State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 30[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 8TH KARTHIKA, 1945** ## **CRL.MC NO. 2171 OF 2022** **CRIME NO.1783/2013 OF Kannur Town, Kannur AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 1143/2014 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF** ## **FIRST CLASS -I, KANNUR** ## **PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:** RASHY.S.INDRAN AGED 44 YEARS S/O.V.SURENDRAN, MANAGER LEGAL, M/S.TOWER VISION INDIA PVT. LTD., 32/1663, BCG ESTATE, 2ND FLOOR, NH BYE PASS ROAD, PALARIVATTOM P.O., COCHIN, PIN - 682025 BY ADV P.SATHISAN ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND 1ST ACCUSED AND STATE:** 1 V.SURESH BABU AGED 60 YEARS S/O.K.P.P.NAMBIAR, KAUSTHUBHAM, MAHATHMAJI ROAD, PALLIKUNNU P.O., KANNUR, PIN - 670004 2 V.SUMANGALI AGED 66 YEARS D/O.K.P.P.NAMBIAR, LAKSHMI, JAYANTHI ROAD, CHALAD P.O., KANNUR, PIN - 670014 3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 BY ADS. SRI HRITHWIK C.S., PP SRI.JAVED HAIDER THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.No.2171 of 2022 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** **------------------------------** **Crl.M.C.No.2171 of 2022 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 30[th] day of October, 2023** ## **ORDER** This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for the sake of brevity). 2. Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.1143/2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kannur arising from Crime No.1783/2013 of Kannur Town Police Station. The above case is charge-sheeted against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 471, 467, 468, 202 r/w 34 IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused Crl.M.C.No.2171 of 2022 3 cheated and committed forgery. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner 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 victim in support of his contention. The counsel appearing for the victim also submitted that the matter is settled and the victim has no objection in quashing the prosecution. 5. 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. 6. This Court has considered the submission of the petitioner, victim and the Public Prosecutor and has also gone through the records including the affidavit Crl.M.C.No.2171 of 2022 4 filed by the victim. 7. 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 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_ Crl.M.C.No.2171 of 2022 5 _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. 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_ Crl.M.C.No.2171 of 2022 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 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.”_ 8. 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, this Criminal Miscellaneous case is 7 Crl.M.C.No.2171 of 2022 allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.1143/2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kannur arising from Crime No.1783/2013 of Kannur Town Police Station are quashed. Sd/- DM **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** Crl.M.C.No.2171 of 2022 8 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2171/2022** ## PETITIONER ANNEXURES |ANNEXURE-A1|CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT| |---|---| ||FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE| ||THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE| ||COURT-I, KANNUR DATED 21.11.2013.| |ANNEXURE-A2|CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR NO.1783 OF| ||2013 DATED 25.11.2013 OF THE KANNUR| ||TOWN POLICE STATION.| |ANNEXURE-A3|TRUE COPY OF THE NO DUES FORM OF THE| ||PETITIONER DATED 28.04.2010.| |ANNEXURE-A4|TRUE COPY OF THE JOINING REPORT OF| ||THE PETITIONER DATED 13.01.2014.| |ANNEXURE-A5|TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION| ||CERTIFICATE<br>NO.804/09<br>DATED| ||25.04.2009 ISSUED BY PALLIKKUNNU| ||VILLAGE.| |ANNEXURE-A6|TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY| ||DATED 14.05.2009.| |ANNEXURE-A7|TRUE COPY OF LICENSE DEED DATED| ||18.05.2009.| |ANNEXURE-A8|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED| ||18.07.2009 IN APPEAL NO.514/2009 OF| ||THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF| ||GOVERNMENT<br>INSTITUTIONS,| ||THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.| |ANNEXURE-A9|TRUE COPY OF LEGAL NOTICE TO THE| ||PETITIONER FIRM DATED 23.07.2009 .| |ANNEXURE-A10|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED| ||08.04.2010 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER| Crl.M.C.No.2171 of 2022 9 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE-A11 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT CONTAINING DETAILS OF THE CHEQUES ISSUED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND HIS BROTHERS. ANNEXURE-A12 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN O.S.NO.438/2009 DATED 29.10.2011 IN THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KANNUR. ANNEXURE-A13 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN CRL.M.C.NO.1412/2014 DATED 28.03.2014. ANNEXURE-A14 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS AS PER WEB PORTAL IN C.C.NO.1143 OF 2014. ANNEXURE-A15 CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN FIR NO.1783 OF 2013 DATED 25.11.2013. ANNEXURE A16 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS :NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE