SHAHINA; ABDHULLA; SHANAVAS v THE STATE OF KERALA & OTHERS

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V THURSDAY, THE 27[TH] DAY OF JULY 2023 / 5TH SRAVANA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 5360 OF 2023`** ## **`CRIME NO.1002 OF 2023 OF VARKALA POLICE STATION`** ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3 :`** ``` 1SHAHINA AGED26YEARS D/O.ABDULLA,NOUSHADMANZIL,JANATHAMUKKU, VARKALAP.O.,VARKALAVILLAGE, - THIRUVANANTHAPURAMDISTRICT,PIN695141 2ABDHULLA AGED56YEARS S/O.ABDULSALAM,NOUSHADMANZIL,JANATHAMUKKU, VARKALAP.O.,VARKALAVILLAGE, - THIRUVANANTHAPURAMDISTRICT,PIN695141 3SHANAVAS AGED55YEARS S/O.JAFFER,NAZEEMAMANZIL,ANCHUMUKKU, NEARKATTIRIUMBINVEEDU,ODAYAM,VARKALAVILLAGE VARKALAP.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAMDISTRICT, - PIN695141 BYADVS. R.RAJESH(VARKALA) M.KIRANLAL MANURAMACHANDRAN SAMEERMNAIR GEETHUKRISHNAN SAILAKSHMIMENON ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE, I.O., DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT & INJURED :`** ``` 1THESTATEOFKERALA REPRESENTEDBYPUBLICPROSECUTOR, - HIGHCOURTOFKERALA,PIN682031 2THESTATIONHOUSEOFFICER VARKALAPOLICESTATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAMRURALDISTRICT, ``` Crl.M.C No.5360 of 2023 2 ``` - PIN695141 ``` ``` 3ALAVUDEEN AGED63YEARS S/OAZEEZ,MINNARAM',MADANNADAROAD, PUTHENCHANTHA,VARKALAVILLAGE,VARKALAP.O., – THIRUVANANTHAPURAMDISTRICT,PIN695141 ``` ``` 4SUMIN AGED28YEARS S/OALAVUDEEN,'MINNARAM',MADANNADAROAD, PUTHENCHANTHA,VARKALAVILLAGE,VARKALAP.O., – THIRUVANANTHAPURAMDISTRICT,PIN695141 ``` ``` SRI.VIPINNARAYAN,SR.PP ``` ``` THISCRIMINALMISC.CASEHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON 27.07.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYPASSEDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` Crl.M.C No.5360 of 2023 3 ## **ORDER** The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.1002/2023 on the Varkala Police Station. In the aforesaid case they are facing prosecution for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 307 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. This petition is filed seeking to quash all further proceedings on the ground of settlement. 2. Sri. Rajesh.R, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the parties have managed to settle their entire disputes, and they are living in peace and harmony. Reliance is placed on Annexure-A2 and A3 affidavits sworn to by the party respondents to substantiate his contention. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced. The learned Public Prosecutor would point out that the offences alleged involve Section 307 of the IPC and the case is at the FIR stage. Relying on the law laid down by the Apex Court in **State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan,[1]** it is submitted that only after the submission of the final 1 [(2019) 5 SCC 688] Crl.M.C No.5360 of 2023 4 report any request for quashing of proceedings on the basis of settlement can be entertained. 4. I have considered the submissions and have gone through the records. 5. In **Laxmi Narayan (supra),** a three-judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has summarised the law as laid down in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab[2]** , **Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab[3]** , **State of Rajasthan v. Shambhu Kewat[4]** , **State of M.P. v. Deepak[5] , State of M.P. v. Manish[6]** , **J. Ramesh Kamath v. Mohana Kurup[7]** ; **State of M.P. v. Rajveer Singh[8]** , **Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat[9] , State of M.P. v. Kalyan Singh[10] and State of M.P. v. Dhruv Gurjar[11]** . 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 > 2 (2012) 10 SCC 303 > 3 2014 (6) SCC 466 > 4 (2014) 4 SCC 149 > 5 (2014) 10 SCC 285 > 6 (2015) 8 SCC 307 > 7 2016) 12 SCC 179 > 8 (2016) 12 SCC 471 > 9 (2017) 9 SCC 641 > 10 (2019) 4 SCC 268 > 11 (2019) 5 SCC 570] Crl.M.C No.5360 of 2023 5 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 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 Crl.M.C No.5360 of 2023 6 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] 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. Crl.M.C No.5360 of 2023 7 6. It was held by the Apex Court that offence under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offence and therefore are to be treated as crimes 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. It was held that it would be open to this Court to examine whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or whether 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 this Court to go by the nature of the injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, the nature of weapons used, etc. However, such an exercise would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/the charge is framed, and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. In the instant case, the final report has not been laid. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to quash the proceedings on the basis of a purported settlement. Crl.M.C No.5360 of 2023 8 This petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the rights of the petitioner to approach this Court after submission of the final report is reserved. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE** NS Crl.M.C No.5360 of 2023 9 ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5360/2023`** ``` PETITIONERANNEXURES: ``` ``` AnnexureA1THETRUECOPYOFTHEFIRINCRIMENO.1002/2023 OFVARKALAPOLICESTATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURALDISTRICT AnnexureA2THEORIGINALAFFIDAVITDATED30.06.2023FILED BYTHEDE-FACTOCOMPLAINANT/3RDRESPONDENT AnnexureA3THEORIGINALAFFIDAVITDATED30.06.2023FILED BYTHE4THRESPONDENT/INJURED ```