High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeThe proceedings in CC 1300/2021 are quashed; th...

Savio R Perera v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:CRL.MC NO.9521 OF 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P.V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date
2023-12-15
Court Decision / Holding
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.1300/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Attingal, arising from Crime No.2354/2021 of Kazhakkuttom Police Station, are quashed.
Final Disposition
The proceedings in CC 1300/2021 are quashed; the criminal proceedings against the petitioners are terminated in light of the settlement and the law governing quashing under Section 482 CrPC.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Savio R Perera
  • Janeesh
  • Nijo Silvester Lopez
  • Ajil A.P

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Kazhakkuttom Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District, Through Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, PIN - 682031
  • Vinu S. Nair S/o Sasidharan Pillai, Thachingal Arappura House Athiyoor Desom, Uliyazhathura Village, Thiruvananthapuram, PIN - 695587
  • Maneesh aged 30 years S/o Prabhakumar, Ajithabhavan Elluvila, Near Karyavattom Sastha Temple Pangappara, Thiruvananthapuram, PIN - 695581

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Adv L. Rajesh Narayan

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Smt. Sreeja V., PP

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 CrPC filed by four accused (Savio R Perera, Janeesh, Nijo Silvester Lopez, Ajil A.P.) challenging CC No.1300/2021 arising from Crime No.2354/2021 of Kazhakkuttom Police Station before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Attingal. The offences cited include 294(b), 323, 324, 341 and 506(1) read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution case alleges wrongful confinement and assault with filthy language. The petitioners and the victims have settled the dispute; affidavits from the victims support the settlement and there is no objection to quashing. The Public Prosecutor initially expressed reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement, though he conceded that the matter is settled. The judge relies on the Supreme Court decisions in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan (2019 (5) SCC 688) and the earlier rulings in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012 (10) SCC 303) and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014 (6) SCC 466) to outline the scope of Section 482 CrPC for quashing non-compoundable offences where the dispute is private and resolved. The court holds that the dispute is private in nature and, following the cited precedents, allows the Crl.M.C. and quashes all further proceedings in CC No.1300/2021. The order reflects a principled balance between finality of private settlements and public order.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 CrPCSection 320 IPCSections 294(b), 323, 324, 341 and 506(1) read with Section 34 IPCSection 307 IPCArms ActPrevention of Corruption ActCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)Indian Penal Code (IPC)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Power under Section 482 CrPC to quash non-compoundable offences where the civil character is predominant and disputes are private, particularly in commercial, matrimonial or family disputes; this power should not be exercised for heinous or depraved offences with a serious societal impact; offences under special statutes (e.g., Prevention of Corruption Act) or offences by public servants should not be quashed merely on settlement; offences such as Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act are generally not quashed; a harmonious reading of Narinder Singh (supra) with Laxmi Narayan (supra) governs the exercise of this power; antecedents and conduct of the accused, including absconding and the circumstances leading to compromise, are material to the decision.
  • cited_cases_step1_name1
  • cited_cases_step1_number1
  • Positive
  • The judgment relies on the Laxmi Narayan decision to set out controlling principles for quashing non-compoundable offences under 482 CrPC and applies them to the present private settlement context.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that the dispute between the parties has been settled and they do not wish to pursue the prosecution. They rely on affidavits from the victims in support of quashing under Section 482 CrPC, arguing that the dispute is private in nature and settlement should terminate the criminal proceedings, particularly given the non‑compoundable nature of the offences and the civil character of the dispute.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor expresses reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement but concedes that a settlement exists. He urges careful scrutiny of the nature of the offences, the evidence, and the need to protect public interest where applicable, while not denying the possibility of quashing in cases where private disputes predominate and the offenders have settled with victims.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others2019 (5) SCC 688PositiveLaxmi Narayan sets out the controlling principles for using Sec. 482 CrPC to quash non‑compoundable offences where the dispute is private and settled.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another2012 (10) SCC 303PositiveCited as foundational authority underpinning the discretionary quashing approach in private disputes.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another2014 (6) SCC 466PositiveCited to harmonize Narinder Singh with Laxmi Narayan and to inform the approach to whether settlement justifies quashing.

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 Savio R Perera 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 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 15[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 9521 OF 2023 ``` ``` CRIME NO.2354/2021 OF Kazhakkuttom Police Station CC 1300/2021 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, ``` ## **`ATTINGAL`** ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4:`** ``` 1SAVIO R PERERA AGED 26 YEARS S/O ROBERT PERERA, SUVIMAYIL HOUSE WARD 14 MURUKKUMPUZHA DESOM VEILOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695305 2JANEESH AGED 33 YEARS S/O RAJAN, R.S VILLA, KRISHNAPURAM PERUNGUZHI DESOM, AZHOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695305 3NIJO SILVESTER LOPEZ AGED 41 YEARS S/O LOPEZ, NEON HOUSE, WARD 14 MURUKKUMPUZHA DESOM, VEILOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695305 4AJIL A.P AGED 28 YEARS S/O ANILKUMAR, VADAKKATHILVILA HOUSE EDAVILAKAM, MURUKKUMPUZHA DESOM, VEILOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695305 BY ADV L.RAJESH NARAYAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:`** - `1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAZHAKUTTAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031` - `2 VINU.S. NAIR S/O SASIDHARAN PILLAI, THACHINGAL ARAPPURA HOUSE ATHIYOOR DESOM, ULIYAZHATHURA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695587` CrlM.C..No.9521/2023 **2** ``` 3MANEESH AGED 30 YEARS S/O PRABHAKUMAR, AJITHABHAVAN ELLUVILA, NEAR KARYAVATTOM SASTHA TEMPLE PANGAPPARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695581 SMT.SREEJA V, PP ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` CrlM.C..No.9521/2023 **3** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.9521 of 2023** **---------------------------------------------Dated this the 15[th] day of December, 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. Petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.1300/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Attingal, arising from Crime No.2354/2021of Kazhakkuttom Police Station. The above case is charge-sheeted alleging offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 341 and 506(1) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused wrongfully confined the victims and assaulted the victims using filthy language. 4. 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 CrlM.C..No.9521/2023 **4** counsel appearing for the victims also submitted that the matter is settled and the victims have 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 petitioners, victims and the Public Prosecutor and has also gone through the records including the affidavits filed by the victims. 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 CrlM.C..No.9521/2023 **5** ## 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 CrlM.C..No.9521/2023 **6** 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 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 CrlM.C..No.9521/2023 **7** 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 allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.1300/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Attingal, arising from Crime No.2354/2021 of Kazhakkuttom Police Station, are quashed. sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** JV CrlM.C..No.9521/2023 **8** ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 9521/2023`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR NO.2354/2021 DATED 16.10.2021 OF THE KAZHAKUTTAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY Annexure A2CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN C.C NO.1300/2021 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, ATTINGAL DATED 24.10.2021 Annexure A3TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 6.11.2023 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT Annexure A4TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 6.11.2023 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT ```