Sujin Lawrence v. State of Kerala; Anil Lucy v. State of Kerala

CRL.MC Nos.7434 & 8429 OF 2022 1 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 2[ND] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1945** **CRL.MC NO. 7434 OF 2022** **CRIME NO.2047/2018 OF Vizhinjam Police Station,** **Thiruvananthapuram** ## **PETITIONER/S:** 1 SUJIN LAWRENCE, AGED 30 YEARS S/O. LAWRENCE, REISIDING AT 61/242,KOTTAPPURAM COLONY, VIZHINJAM, KOTTAPPURAM, P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695521 2 JIJIN DEVIDSON, AGED 29 YEARS S/O. DAVIDSON, RESIDING AT THANNININNAVILAKOM VEEDU, MUKKOLA, KOTTAPPURAM , VIZHINJAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695521 3 JOY, AGED 24 YEARS S/O. JOHNSON, RESIDING AT STELLA BHAVAN, KOTTAPPURAM, P.O. VIZHINJAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695521 4 JERIN, D. AGED 27 YEARS S/O. DENSON, RESIDING AT JAIN VILLA, KOTTAPPURAM, P.O. VIZHINJAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695521 BY ADVS. V.N.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR A.CHANDRA BABU G.ARUN G.VARUN CRL.MC Nos.7434 & 8429 OF 2022 2 ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, AT ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682031 2 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023 3 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRCIT, PIN - 695521 4 ANIL LUCY, AGED 33 YEARS S/O. JAYAMANI, RESIDING AT ANEESH BHAVAN, PANAVILACODE, SHANTHIGRAMAM, MULLOOR, P.O. VIZHINJAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695521 BY ADVS. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR JOSEPH T.JOHN ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SRI.RENJITH.T.R, PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.11.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.8429/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.MC Nos.7434 & 8429 OF 2022 3 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **THURSDAY, THE 2[ND] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1945** **CRL.MC NO. 8429 OF 2022** **CRIME NO.44/2019 OF Vizhinjam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram PETITIONER/S:** ANIL LUCY, AGED 33 YEARS S/O JAYAMANI, RESIDING AT ANEESH BHAVAN, PANAVILACODE, SHANTHIGRAMAM, MULLOOR P.O., VIZHINJAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695521 BY ADV JOSEPH T.JOHN ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023 3 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE VIZHINJAM POLICE STATIONM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695521 4 ELSY, AGED 68 YEARS W/O LAWRENCE, RESIDING AT 61/242, KOTTAPPURAM COLONY, VIZHINJAM, KOTTAPPURAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695521 CRL.MC Nos.7434 & 8429 OF 2022 4 BY ADVS. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR V.N.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR G.ARUN(K/251/2005) G.VARUN(K/424/2009) THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.11.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.7434/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.MC Nos.7434 & 8429 OF 2022 5 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** **--------------------------------------Crl.M.C. Nos. 7434 & 8429 of 2022 -------------------------------------Dated this the 2[nd] day of November, 2023** ## **O R D E R** These Crl.M.C.s are connected and therefore, I am disposing of these Crl.M.C.s by a common order. 2. Crl.M.C.No. 7434/2022 is filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 2047/2018 of Vizhinjam Police Station. Crl.M.C. No. 8429/2022 is filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 44/2019 of Vizhinjam Police Station. It is true that in Crime No. 2047/2018 of Vizhinjam Police, the offence alleged include the offence under Sec. 307 IPC. But, it is an admitted fact that these are case and counter case. This Court also perused the wound certificate of the victim in Crime No. 2047/2018. There is only abrasion and one soft tissue injury to the injured. That shows that the offence under Sec. 307 IPC may CRL.MC Nos.7434 & 8429 OF 2022 6 not be attracted. 3. 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 counsel appearing for the victims also submitted that the matter is settled and the victims have no objection in quashing the prosecution. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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 CRL.MC Nos.7434 & 8429 OF 2022 7 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; 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; CRL.MC Nos.7434 & 8429 OF 2022 8 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 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 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 CRL.MC Nos.7434 & 8429 OF 2022 9 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.” 7. 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, these Criminal Miscellaneous cases are allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in Crl.M.C. No. 7434/22 in Crime No. 2047/2018 of Vizhinjam Police Station and the petitioner in Crl.M.C. No. 8429/22 in Crime No. 44/2019 of Vizhinjam Police Station are quashed. **Sd/P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** SKS CRL.MC Nos.7434 & 8429 OF 2022 10 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 8429/2022** PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT DATED 7-1-2019 BEFORE THE VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION Annexure-A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DEFACTO COMPLAINANT DATED 5- 8-2022 CRL.MC Nos.7434 & 8429 OF 2022 11 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7434/2022** PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure-I A TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT DATED 24-12-2018 BEFORE THE VAIZHINJAM POLICE STATION Annexure-II ORIGINAL THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 3-8-2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT Annexure-III A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 30-92022 IN CRIME NO.2047/2018 BEFORE THE VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION