High Court of KeralaSingle JudgePetition Allowed; Proceedings Quashed

Sanden Lepcha, Joseph Antony Reon and Abdul Shan v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:CRL.MC NO. 5796 OF 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
Judgment Date
2023-08-23
Court Decision / Holding
Resultantly, the petition is allowed. Annexure-A2 Final Report in Crime No.921/2018 of Elamakkara Police Station and all further proceedings against the petitioners in CC No.553/2019 before the JMFC-II, Aluva, are quashed.
Final Disposition
Petition Allowed; Proceedings Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Sanden Lepcha
  • Joseph Antony Reon
  • Abdul Shan

Respondents

  • State of Kerala
  • Sebastian CJ S/O CD Joseph (de facto complainant)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Manu M. Thomas
  • • P. Sreesha

Counsels for Respondents

  • • P. Anil Kumar
  • • Smt. Nimaj Jacob, PP

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court judgment, rendered by Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V, concerns a criminal misc petition under Section 482 CrPC filed by accused nos. 1–3 in CC 553/2019 arising from FIR No. 921/2018 (Elamakkara Police Station). The accused were charged with offences punishable under IPC Sections 323 and 506(i) read with Section 34. The prosecution alleged that on 25.9.2018, in a shared intent, the petitioners assaulted the de facto complainant, causing injuries. The petitioners’ counsel urged that the dispute has been amicably settled and that the parties do not wish to pursue the prosecution; they relied on respondent’s affidavit to support the settlement and requested quashing under the inherent powers of this Court. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement but acknowledged the absence of other serious crimes by the petitioners. The Court examined jurisprudence including State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, holding that the power under Section 482 CrPC can be used to quash non-compoundable offences with predominantly civil character where the dispute is resolved, while excluding heinous/offences of public concern (e.g., 307 IPC) and certain special-statute cases. Balancing gravity, injuries, antecedents, and the amicable settlement, the Court found no public interest in continuing the prosecution and allowed the petition, quashing Annexure-A2 Final Report and further proceedings in CC 553/2019.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of CrPCSection 320 of IPCSection 323 IPCSection 506(i) IPCSection 34 IPCSection 307 IPCArms ActCode of CrPC, 1973

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Ends of justice (principle guiding exercise of inherent powers)
  • Amicable settlement can justify quashing private offences
  • Private nature offences and lack of public interest considerations
  • Societal impact considerations in quashing offences (notably disallowing quashing for grave crimes)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that the dispute between the parties has been settled amicably and there is no ongoing grievance. They urged the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings in view of the amicable settlement, relying on the affidavit of the respondent in support of the settlement and asserting that continued prosecution would disrupt peace and mutual reconciliatio n.

Contentions of Respondents

The State/Prosecution expressed caution about quashing solely on the basis of settlement, emphasizing the nature and gravity of the offences. They acknowledged no other serious crimes against the petitioners and noted that the settlement does not automatically negate the possibility of charges if evidence supports a charge under Section 307 IPC or similar provisions. They urged careful scrutiny; yet they did not oppose the settlement’s influence on the pace and ends of justice.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan2019 (5) SCC 688PositiveCited as the leading decision summarizing the law for quashing private/non-compoundable offences under 482 CrPC when a dispute has been resolved.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab2012 (10) SCC 303PositiveCited as foundational authority underpinning the 482 CrPC power and the structured approach (15.1–15.5) to quashing in private, non-serious matters.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab2014 (6) SCC 466PositiveReferenced for boundaries on quashing, particularly with respect to private vs. public interest concerns and the nature of offences.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Sanden Lepcha, Joseph Antony Reon and Abdul Shan v. State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V WEDNESDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 1ST BHADRA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 5796 OF 2023`** ``` CRIMENO.921/2018OFELAMAKKARAPOLICESTATION,ERNAKULAM AGAINSTCCNO.553/2019OFJUDICIALMAGISTRATEOFFIRSTCLASS -II,ALUVA ``` ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3:`** ``` 1SANDENLEPCHA AGED27YEARS S/OTIKARAMLEPCHA,PURBASAMALBONG, SAMALBONGKHASMAHAL,SINJI,DARJEELING, - WESTBENGAL-,PIN734301 2JOSEPHANTONYREON AGED23YEARS,S/OROYJOSEPH, THONDIPARAMBILHOUSE,OCHAMTHURUTH, VYPINMUNAPAM,PUTHUVYPE,KOCHI, - KERALA,PIN682508 3ABDULSHAN AGED25YEARS S/OABDULSHEREEF,6/73, ASLAND,CHATHANNUR,MEENADVILLAGE, – KOLLAM-,PIN691578 BYADVS. MANU.M.THOMAS P.SREESHA ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT :`** ``` 1STATEOFKERALA REPRESENTEDBYPUBLICPROSECUTOR, - HIGHCOURTOFKERALA,ERNAKULAM,PIN682031 2SEBASTIANCJ S/OCDJOSEPH,AGED52YEARS, AADHARNO948442749996,29/1749, CHAKKALAKKAL,PERNADOORROAD, - VTCELAMAKKARA,ERNAKULAM-,PIN682026 BYADVP.C.ANILKUMAR SMT.NIMAJACOB,PP ``` ``` THISCRIMINALMISC.CASEHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON 23.08.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYPASSEDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` ``` CRL.MCNO.5796OF2023 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **ORDER** This petition is filed invoking the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for the sake of brevity). 2. The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C. - No.553 of 2019 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class II, Aluva. In the said case, they are accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506(i) r/w Section 34 of the IPC. 3. The prosecution allegation, as borne out from the records, are as under: On 25.9.2018 at about 10.30 p.m., the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, attacked the de facto complainant causing injuries. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties have settled their dispute and do not wish to pursue the ``` CRL.MCNO.5796OF2023 ``` ``` 3 ``` prosecution proceedings. He relies on the affidavit filed by the party respondent in support of his contention. Counsel argues that if the proceedings are terminated, with the recording of the amicable settlement, the parties can move forward in an atmosphere of peace and mutual respect. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, has expressed reservations about quashing the proceedings solely on the basis of the settlement. He argues that the facts and circumstances may not warrant the exercise of the court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, it is fairly submitted that there have been no other crimes of serious nature registered against the petitioners to date. It is further submitted that the statement of the party respondent has been recorded, and he has unequivocally stated that he does not have any lasting grievances. 6. I have considered the submissions and have gone through the records. 7. In **State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan,[1]** , a three-judge > 1 (2019) 5 SCC 688 ``` CRL.MCNO.5796OF2023 ``` ``` 4 ``` bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has summarized the law as laid down in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab[2]** , **Narinder Singh v. State** **of Punjab[3]** and in subsequent cases. It was laid down as under: 15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under: - 15.1. That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 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; - 15.2. 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; - 15.3. Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes 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 > 3 2014 (6) SCC 466 > 2 (2012) 10 SCC 303 ``` CRL.MCNO.5796OF2023 ``` ``` 5 ``` compromise between the victim and the offender; 15.4. Offences under Section 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 Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act, etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 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 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 framing 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. 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 paras 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] ``` CRL.MCNO.5796OF2023 ``` ``` 6 ``` should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; - 15.5. While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offenses, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impact 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. Having carefully analyzed the prayer sought for in the light of the principles laid down as above and also the nature of the allegations, the gravity of the offense, the severity of injuries inflicted, antecedents of the accused, and the amicable relationship that now exists between the parties, I am of the considered opinion that quashing the proceedings on the basis of the settlement will not have any adverse impact on society. In fact, it would only serve to bring about peace and secure the ends of justice. Additionally, persisting with the prosecution would be a waste of time, as the prospects of conviction are bleak. In ``` CRL.MCNO.5796OF2023 ``` ``` 7 ``` light of all of the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court would be well justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings Resultantly, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A2 Final Report in Crime No.921/2018 of Elamakkara Police Station and all further proceedings against the petitioners pending as C.C. No.553/2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Aluva, are quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE** NS ``` CRL.MCNO.5796OF2023 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5796/2023`** ``` PETITIONERANNEXURES AnnexureA1CERTIFIEDCOPYOFTHECRIMENO921/2018OF ELAMAKKARAPSCRIME,ERNAKULAM AnnexureA2CERTIFIEDCOPYOFTHEFINALREPORTINCRIME NO921/2018OFELAMAKKARAPSCRIME, ERNAKULAMDATED05.10.2018 ``` ``` Annexure3NOTARISEDAFFIDAVITDATED10.07.2023SIGNED BYTHE2NDRESPONDENT ```