Sourav Raj and others v. State of Kerala and others

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1945 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 8189 OF 2023 ``` ``` SC 861/2019 OF II ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,THRISSUR ``` ``` PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 8: ``` ``` 1SOURAV RAJ AGED 24 YEARS S/O DEVARAJ, KOTTAYIL HOUSE, VILAYOOR WEST, VILAYOOR VILLAGE, PALAKKAD, PIN - 679309 2ADITHYAN K M AGED 25 YEARS S/O JEMINI, KALARIKKAL HOUSE, SOCIETY ROAD, ANJERI, OLLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680006 3AMAL KRISHNA V S AGED 24 YEARS S/O SALESH, VIRUTHIYIL HOUSE, THALAVANIKKAR DESOM, NENMANIKKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680001 4DHEEJITH P D AGED 24 YEARS, S/O DILEEPKUMAR, PUTHUKULANGARA HOUSE, KOLANGATTUKARA DESOM, CHOOLISSERI VILLAGE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680013 5VISHAK K K AGED 25 YEARS S/O KUTTAN, KADAVIL HOUSE, NANDIKKARA DESOM, PARAPPOOKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680301 6GAUTHYAM RAJ AGED 26 YEARS S/O RAJAN, KOLLAMKULANGARA HOUSE, KUTTOOR DESOM, KUTTOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680013 7HEMANTH K H AGED 25 YEARS HARIDASAN, HARITHA HOUSE, VALIYAPARAMB DESOM, MELATTUR VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 673637 8AJHISHEK P V AGED 24 YEARS S/O VELAYUDHAN, POOVATHINGAL HOUSE, THRIKKUMARAMKUDAM DESOM, AYYANTHOLE VILLAGE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003 BY ADVS.VIVEK.P.K GADHA.S MOHAMED SHAREEF PARIYARATH SANDEEP SUKUMARAN ``` CrlM.C..No.8189/2023 **2** ## **`RESPONDENTS / STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & INJURED WITNESS:`** - `1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031` - `2 RANJITH C A AGED 25 YEARS S/O ASHOKAN, CHENNENKATTIL HOUSE, CHITTANJOOR DESOM, CHITTANJOOR P.O., THRISSUR, PIN - 680523` - `3 PRAMOD AGED 23 YEARS, S/O PEETHAMBARAN, EDAT HOUSE, KODAKARA DESOM, KODAKARA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR, PIN - 680684` - `4 REJIN AGED 24 YEARS, S/O RAVI, CHAVOOR HOUSE, THRITHALLOOR DESOM,VADANAPPILLY VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR, PIN - 680619` - `5 RAHUL ITTITHARA RAMANKUTTY AGED 26 YEARS, S/O RAMANKUTTY, HAVING PASSPORT NO.M7219458, ITTITHARA HOUSE, LOKAMALLESWARAM DESOM, LOKAMALLESWARAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA STATE, INDIA, NOW RESIDING AT SHARJAUNITED ARAB EMIRATES, AL MAJAZ 2, PIN - 680664` - `6 NITHEESH AGED 24 YEARS, S/O BALAN, KIZHAKOOT HOUSE, KULATHOOR DESOM, NELAY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR, PIN - 680699` - `7 YADHUKRISHNAN AGED 26 YEARS, S/O RADHAKRISHNAN, KARUVALATHUMKARA HOUSE, AMBAYATHODU DESOM, KOTTIYOOR VILLAGE, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR, PIN - 670651` - `8 AKASH AGED 23 YEARS, S/O PREMAN, OOTTUMADATHIL HOUSE, KAIPARAMBU DESOM, MUNDOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR,, PIN - 680546 SRI SANAL P RAJ, PP, SRI.SHYAM KUMAR M.P.` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` CrlM.C..No.8189/2023 **3** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.8189 of 2023** **---------------------------------------------Dated this the 26[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. Petitioners are the accused in S.C.No.861/2019 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Thrissur, arising from Crime No.523/2018 of Thrissur West Police Station. The above case is charge-sheeted alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 325 and 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and assaulted the victims. 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.8189/2023 **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.8189/2023 **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.8189/2023 **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.8189/2023 **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 S.C.No.861/2019 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Thrissur, arising from Crime No.523/2018 of Thrissur West Police Station, are quashed. Sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** JV CrlM.C..No.8189/2023 **8** ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 8189/2023`** |`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`|`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`| |---|---| |`Annexure A1`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT AND`| ||`MEMO OF EVIDENCE IN CRIME NO. 523 OF`| ||`2018 OF THRISSUR WEST POLICE STATION`| |`Annexure A2`|`THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND`| ||`RESPONDENT DATED 20.06.2023`| |`Annexure A3`|`THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD`| ||`RESPONDENT DATED 17.09.2023`| |`Annexure A4`|`THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH`| ||`RESPONDENT DATED 20.06.2023`| |`Annexure A5`|`THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH`| ||`RESPONDENT DATED 13.08.2023`| |`Annexure A6`|`THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH`| ||`RESPONDENT DATED 17.09.2023`| |`Annexure A7`|`THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE 7TH`| ||`RESPONDENT DATED 17.09.2023`| |`Annexure A8`|`THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE 8TH`| ||`RESPONDENT DATED 17.09.2023`|