High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed - Proceedings in CC 334/2020 quashed

Silpa Aneesh v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:CRL.M.C No. 7863 of 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date
2023-10-13
Court Decision / Holding
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner in CC No.334/2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I, Muvattupuzha, arising from Crime No.83/2019 of Muvattupuzha Police Station, are quashed.
Final Disposition
Quashed - Proceedings in CC 334/2020 quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Silpa Aneesh

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor
  • Krishnachandran
  • Sabine
  • Daisy Roy

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri. Hritcwick CS PP
  • • Sri P. Vishnu Prasad

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala

Case Synopsis & Summary

Silpa Aneesh, the accused in CC 334/2020 arising from Crime No.83/2019 of Muvattupuzha Police Station, moves this Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings. The case charges offences under IPC Sections 464(a), 465 and 381. The parties have settled their dispute and expressed no wish to pursue the prosecution; affidavits from the victims supporting the settlement are placed on record. The Public Prosecutor initially indicated reservations about quashing solely on the basis of the settlement, but accepted that the matter had been settled. The court examined the record and relied on pronouncements of the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh etc. The Laxmi Narayan decision lays down that the power under Section 482 CrPC to quash non-compoundable offences can be exercised where the dispute is essentially civil and the parties have resolved the entire dispute, but not where the offences are heinous, serious, or under special statutes, or where public interest is involved. The bench also notes that the accused’s antecedents and conduct may be considered. In the present case, the dispute is private in nature and the settlement is complete; hence the court allows the application and quashes the proceedings in CC 334/2020. This reflects the modern approach of balancing private settlements with public interest.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Section 320 of the Indian Penal CodeSections 464(a), 465, 381 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Power under Section 482 CrPC to quash non-compoundable offences where the dispute is private and settled (Laxmi Narayan, 2019 SCC 688)
  • Not to quash for heinous or serious offences (e.g., murder, rape, dacoity)
  • Not to quash offences under special statutes (e.g., Prevention of Corruption Act)
  • Offences under S.307 IPC and the Arms Act are serious and not quashed on settlement
  • Court may consider antecedents and conduct of the accused and the private nature of the dispute
  • Quashing is permissible when the entire dispute is resolved in private disputes; but public interest and evidence must be weighed

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants argued that the dispute between the parties has been resolved amicably, with affidavits from the victims supporting the settlement. They contend that the offences are private in nature, the entire dispute is settled, and continued prosecution serves no purpose. Citing Laxmi Narayan and related precedents, they urge exercise of the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash non‑compoundable offences to promote closure and avoid harassment, especially where the public interest is not offended.

Contentions of Respondents

The State/Prosecutor initially voiced reservations about quashing merely on the basis of settlement but acknowledged that a settlement exists. The Opposition argues that the offences charged (IPC 464(a), 465, 381) are not of a category that ought to be quashed trivially; however, given the private nature of the dispute and the absence of public interest or serious prejudice, the state ultimately did not oppose the quo. The Court is urged to balance settlement against public interest and maintain the integrity of the legal process.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others2019 (5) SCC 688PositiveCited to support the principle that Section 482 CrPC can quash non‑compoundable, private offences where the dispute is civil and settled; also clarifies limits (not for heinous/offences with public interest).
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another2012 (10) SCC 303PositiveCited as part of the law framework underpinning Laxmi Narayan regarding limits on quashing; reinforces view that serious offences should not be quashed on settlement.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another2014 (6) SCC 466PositiveCited in conjunction with Laxmi Narayan to illustrate harmonious application of quashing powers in private disputes; underscores considerations of private nature and settlement.

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 Silpa Aneesh v. State of Kerala and Others 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 13[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 21ST ASWINA, 1945** **CRL.MC NO. 7863 OF 2023** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 334/2020 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF** **FIRST CLASS -I MUVATTUPUZHA** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** SILPA ANEESH AGED 34 YEARS W/O ANEESH, KANDOTHUMOOLAYIL HOUSE, MULAVOOR VILLAGE, VAZHAPILLY KARA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686669 BY ADVS. K.R.PRATHISH P.K.SREEVALSAKRISHNAN S.UNNIKRISHNAN (NELLAD) JOEL CHALAMANA KRISHNA DAS ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 KRISHNACHANDRAN AGED 37 YEARS S/O UNNIKRISHNAN, ANJUKULATHU HOUSE, KOTHAKULANGARA KARA, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683572 3 SABINE AGED 55 YEARS S/O SIVADASAN, SABADEEP HOUSE, PEZHAKKAPILLY KARA, MULAVOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686673 4 DAISY ROY AGED 56 YEARS Crl.M.C.No.7863 of 2023 **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** W/O ROY, NEDUMTHADATHIL HOUSE, PAMBAKUDA KARA, MEMMURY VILLAGE, PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686667 BY ADVS. SRI.HRITCWICK CS PP SRI.P.VISHNU PRASAD THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.No.7863 of 2023 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** **------------------------------** **Crl.M.C.No.7863 of 2023** **---------------------------------------------Dated this the 13[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.334/2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I, Muvattupuzha arising from Crime No.83/2019 of Muvattupuzha Police Station. The above case is charge-sheeted against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Section 464(a), 465 and 381 IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused committed theft and thereby committed the above said Crl.M.C.No.7863 of 2023 4 offences. 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 affidavits filed by the victims in support of his contention. The 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 petitioner, victims and the Public Prosecutor and has also gone through the records including the Crl.M.C.No.7863 of 2023 5 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 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.7863 of 2023 6 _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.7863 of 2023 7 _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 noncompoundable 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 8 Crl.M.C.No.7863 of 2023 allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.334/2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I, Muvattupuzha arising from Crime No.83/2019 of Muvattupuzha Police Station are quashed. Sd/- DM **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** Crl.M.C.No.7863 of 2023 9 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7863/2023** ## PETITIONER ANNEXURES |ANNEXURE A1|CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR ALONG WITH| |---|---| ||COMPLAINT SUBMITTED IN CRIME NO. 83| ||OF 2019 OF MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE| ||STATION| |ANNEXURE A2|CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT| ||IN C.C NO. 334 OF 2020 OF JUDICIAL| ||FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,| ||MUVATTUPUZHA| |ANNEXURE A3|ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF THE RESPONDENT| ||NO. 2 DATED 21.09.2023| |ANNEXURE A4|ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF THE RESPONDENT| ||NO. 3 DATED 21.09.2023| |ANNEXURE A5|ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF THE RESPONDENT| ||NO. 4 DATED 21.09.2023| |RESPONDENTS|EXHIBITS<br>:NIL| ||//TRUE COPY//<br>PA TO JUDGE|