State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala v. Robin Mathew, Aneesh Kumar, Biji K Varghese, Amal Kumar and Ciby Mathew

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 19TH KARTHIKA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 8835 OF 2023 ``` ``` L.P NO.23/2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, PATHANAMTHITTA ARISING FROM CRIME NO.1196/2012 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA ``` ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 5:`** ``` 1ROBIN MATHEW AGED 31 YEARS S/O A.S.MATHAI @ BABY, SREYAS HOUSE, MANAKKALA P.O, ERATH VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 691551 2ANEESH KUMAR AGED 31 YEARS S/O MOHANAKUMAR, CHARUVIL PADINJARAKKETHIL VEETTIL, PRAMADAM VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 689646 3BIJI K VARGHESE AGED 31 YEARS S/O GHE VARGHESE, KIZHAKKEDATHU VEETTIL, KONNI THAZHAM VILLAGE, NJALLOOR P.O, PATHANAMTHITTTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689699 4AMAL KUMAR AGED 31 YEARS S/O SASI, ANEESH BHAVANAM, AIKKAS MURI, ANGHADIKKAL P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689648 5CIBY MATHEW AGED 41 YEARS S/O A.S.MATHAI @ BABY, SREYAS HOUSE, MANAKKALA P.O, ERATH VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 691551 BY ADV SABIKH MOHAMMED V.S ``` ``` Crl.M.C. NO. 8835 OF 2023 ``` 2 ## **`RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:`** - `1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031` - `2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION OF PATHANAMTHITTA, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689645` - `3 ANAZ MOHAMMED AGED 30 YEARS` ``` S/O NAJEEB, KAMILA BUILDING, PATHANAMTHITTA P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689645 ``` - `4 ABDUL BASITH AGED 29 YEARS` ``` S/O KABEER, USSICAL PURAYIDAM, KULASHEKHARAPATHY, PATHANAMTHITTA P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689645 ``` - `5 AMEER SULTHAN SAINUDEEN AGED 30 YEARS` ``` S/O SAINUDEEN, KAVUMPATTU HOUSE, PERINGAMALA, THONNIYAMALA P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689668 ``` ``` 6AJMAL P M AGED 30 YEARS S/O MEERASAHIB, PZHAYAVEEDU, PETTAH, PATHANAMTHITTA P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689645 ``` ``` Crl.M.C. NO. 8835 OF 2023 ``` 3 ``` SMT SREEJA V – PP SRI FEBIN RAJ T S - FOR RESPONDENTS ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` Crl.M.C. NO. 8835 OF 2023 ``` 4 **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -----------------------------------Crl.M.C. No. 8835 of 2023 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 10[th] day of November, 2023** ## **O R D E R** This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 2. The petitioners are the accused in L.P. No.23/2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta arising from Crime No.1196/2012 of Pathanamthitta Police Station. The above case is charge sheeted against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 read with 149 of IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and assaulted the victims. ``` Crl.M.C. NO. 8835 OF 2023 ``` 5 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 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 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 ``` Crl.M.C. NO. 8835 OF 2023 ``` 6 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 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; ``` Crl.M.C. NO. 8835 OF 2023 ``` 7 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 ``` Crl.M.C. NO. 8835 OF 2023 ``` 8 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 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 ``` Crl.M.C. NO. 8835 OF 2023 ``` 9 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 L.P. No.23/2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta arising from Crime No.1196/2012 of Pathanamthitta Police Station are quashed. **Sd/-** SK **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** ``` Crl.M.C. NO. 8835 OF 2023 ``` 10 ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 8835/2023`** ``` PETITIONERS’ ANNEXURES : ``` - `Annexure A1` ``` THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.1196/2012 OF POLICE STATION OF PATHANAMTHITTA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT WHICH IS NOW PENDING AS LP NO.23/2019 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, PATHANAMTHITTA ``` - `Annexure A2 THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 10.02.2023 SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT` - `Annexure A3 THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 10.02.2023 SWORN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT` - `Annexure A4 THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 14.08.2023 SWORN BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT` - `Annexure A5 THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 10.02.2023 SWORN BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT` ``` RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES : NIL ```