SMANOJPILLAI@MANOJ v. STATE OF KERALA

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V FRIDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 4683 OF 2023`** ## **`CRIME NO.1532/2022 OF THE ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION`** ## **`PETITIONERS/1ST AND 2ND ACCUSED :`** ``` 1SMANOJPILLAI@MANOJ AGED42YEARS SONOFSHRISHIVASANKARANPILLAI,HARISHREEHOUSE, PERANDOORROADPULLIATT,ELAMAKKARAP.O,ERNAKULAM, – KERALA,,PIN682026 2V.SPILLAI@SHIVASANKARAN AGED75YEARS SONOFLATESRI.VASUDHEVANPILLAI, THOMBILTHENNATTU,CHERIYAVAPPALASSERY, NEDUMBASSERYVILLAGE,MEKKAD,ERNAKULAM, – KERALA,PIN683589 BYADVS. LUKEJCHIRAYIL AMALJOSE JASNIJALAL ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT :`** ``` 1STATEOFKERALA REPRESENTEDBYPUBLICPROSECUTOR, – HIGHCOURTOFKERALA,PIN682031 2THESTATIONHOUSEOFFICER ERNAKULAMTOWNNORTHPOLICESTATION CHITTOORROAD,KACHERIPPADY,ERNAKULAM, – ERNAKULAMDISTRICT,KERALA,PIN682018 3BIJUMATHEW AGED55YEARS SONOFSRI.MATHEW,RESIDINGATMATHEWSONSHOUSE, ``` ``` CRL.MCNO.4683OF2023 ``` **==> picture [9 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` OPPOSITEFAMILYCOURT,KALOOR, – ERNAKULAM,KERALA,,PIN68201 ``` ``` BYADVMILLUDANDAPANI ``` ``` SRI.VIPINNARAYAN,SR.PP ``` ``` THISCRIMINALMISC.CASEHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON 04.08.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYPASSEDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` ``` CRL.MCNO.4683OF2023 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **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 and 2 in Crime No.1532 of 2022 of the Ernakulam Town North Police station. In the said case, they are accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 378, 403, 405, 406, 420, 425, 441 and 120-A read with Section 34 of the IPC. 3. The prosecution allegation, as borne out from the records, are as under: The Martuti Gypsi car owned by the petitioners was sold to the informant for consideration. It is alleged that after having received the amounts, the petitioners trespassed into the residential home of the informant and committed theft of the vehicle. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had approached this Court seeking pre-arrest bail, and this ``` CRL.MCNO.4683OF2023 ``` ``` 4 ``` Court referred the parties to mediation. It is submitted that a memorandum of agreement has now been executed, and the parties have resolved all their differences. The agreement has been placed on record as Annexure A2. The learned 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 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 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** > 2 (2012) 10 SCC 303 > 1 [(2019) 5 SCC 688] ``` CRL.MCNO.4683OF2023 ``` ``` 5 ``` ## **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 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 > 3 2014 (6) SCC 466 ``` CRL.MCNO.4683OF2023 ``` ``` 6 ``` 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] should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; ``` CRL.MCNO.4683OF2023 ``` ``` 7 ``` 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 offence, the 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 light of all of the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court would be well ``` CRL.MCNO.4683OF2023 ``` ``` 8 ``` justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings Resultantly, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A1 FIR in Crime No.1532/2022 of the Ernakulam Town North Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners are quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V. JUDGE** NS ``` CRL.MCNO.4683OF2023 ``` ``` 9 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4683/2023`** ``` PETITIONERANNEXURES: ``` ``` AnnexureA1 ``` ``` THETRUECOPYOFTHEF.I.RDATED 13.12.2022INCRIMENO.1532OF2022ON THEFILESOFERNAKULAMTOWNNORTHPOLICE STATION ``` ``` AnnexureA2 ``` ``` THETRUECOPYOFTHECOMMONJUDGMENTIN B.A.NO.7009OF2022ANDB.A.NO.840OF 2023ANDW.P.(CRL)44/2023,DATED 27.02.2023ONTHEFILESOFTHEHONORABLE HIGHCOURTOFKERALA ```