High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed

Unni, Sijo, Bins Augustine, Shaji and Shyju v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:CRL.MC NO. 9926 OF 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date
2023-12-21
Court Decision / Holding
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in CC No.113 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Sasthamcotta, arising from Crime No.326 of 2021 of East Kallada Police Station, Kollam are quashed.
Final Disposition
Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Unni
  • Sijo
  • Bins Augustine
  • Shaji
  • Shyju

Respondents

  • State of Kerala
  • Inspector of Police, East Kallada Police Station, Kollam
  • Asvin

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • B. Dipu Sach Deev
  • • Aneeshraj R.

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Arun Babu

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 CrPC filed by five accused challenging CC No.113/2021 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sasthamcotta, arising from East Kallada Police Station Crime No.326/2021. The petitioners—Unni, Sijo, Bins Augustine, Shaji, and Shyju—seek to quash the prosecution on the grounds that the dispute has been settled and they do not wish to pursue the case, supporting this with an affidavit from the victim. The respondent State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, acknowledges the settlement but voices reservations about quashing solely on that basis. The victims’ side also supports the settlement. The court cites three-judge Supreme Court judgments, notably State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) and the accompanying discussions on when Section 482 CrPC power to quash non-compoundable offences may be exercised, particularly when the matter is private and settled, while excluding heinous or serious offences and offences under special statutes. The court emphasizes evaluating the nature of the offences (here, sections 143, 147, 341, 323, 324 read with 149 IPC) and the private character of the dispute, ultimately concluding that the settlement is genuine. The result is an allowed CrMC with quashing of proceedings against the petitioners.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 CrPCSection 320 CrPCIPC Sections 143, 147, 341, 323, 324 read with 149

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Power under Section 482 CrPC to quash non-compoundable offences where the dispute is private and settled.
  • Such power is exercised for civil/private disputes and not for heinous/serious offences or offences under special statutes.
  • Consideration of antecedents and conduct of the accused when quashing based on settlement.
  • Limitations include not quashing for serious crimes; if applicable, assess evidence and nature of injury before charging under Section 307 IPC.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that the dispute between the parties has been settled and they do not wish to pursue the prosecution. They rely on the victim’s affidavit in support of the settlement. They contend that the offences are non-compoundable but private in nature and that quashing under Section 482 CrPC is appropriate where the private dispute has been settled and there is no public interest to be served by continuation of the prosecution.

Contentions of Respondents

The State/prosecution expresses reservations about quashing solely on the basis of a settlement but concedes that the matter is settled; the court should exercise caution, particularly for offences with serious impact on society, and assess the nature of the offences and the likelihood of success if pursued.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others2019 (5) SCC 688PositiveCited for the proposition that the power under Section 482 CrPC to quash non-compoundable offences can be exercised when the offence is private in nature and the dispute has been settled, subject to stated limitations.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another2012 (10) SCC 303Mentioned OnlyCited in the Laxmi Narayan discussion as part of the background law; not directly relied upon in the present judgment’s reasoning.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another2014 (6) SCC 466Mentioned OnlyCited in the Laxmi Narayan discussion as part of the background law; not directly relied upon in the present judgment’s reasoning.

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 Unni, Sijo, Bins Augustine, Shaji and Shyju v. State of Kerala 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 THURSDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA,`** ## **`1945`** ## **`CRL.MC NO. 9926 OF 2023`** ``` CRIME NO.326/2021 OF East Kallada Police Station, Kollam AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 113/2021 OF JUDICIAL ``` ``` MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS , SASTHAMCOTTA ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` 1UNNI, AGED 45 YEARS RESIDING AT CHRISTU BHAVAN,CHERUMOODU,THEKKE MURI, PERINAD, P.O. KIZHAKKE KALLADA VILLAGE, KOLLAM-, PIN - 691511 2SIJO, AGED 32 YEARS RESIDING AT SINI SADHANAM,KODUVILA P.O, KIZHAKKEKALLADA, EAST KALLADA, KIZHAKKE KALLADA VILLAGE, KOLLAM, PIN - 691502 3BINS AUGUSTIN, AGED 23 YEARS RESIDING AT KANDATHIL VEEDU, KODUVILA P.O, KIZHAKKEKALLADA, EAST KALLADA, KIZHAKKE KALLADA VILLAGE, KOLLAM, PIN - 691502 4SHAJI, AGED 54 YEARS RESIDING AT KONUVILA THEKKATHIL, KODUVILA P.O, KIZHAKKEKALLADA, EAST KALLADA, KIZHAKKE KALLADA VILLAGE ,KOLLAM, PIN - 691502 5SHYJU, AGED 43 YEARS RESIDING AT KONUVILLA THEKKATHIL,SINKARAPPALLY, KODUVILA P.O, KIZHAKKEKALLADA, EAST KALLADA, KIZHAKKE KALLADA VILLAGE, KOLLAM, PIN - 691502 BY ADVS. B.DIPU SACH DEEV ANEESHRAJ R. ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` -2- Crl.M.C No. 9926 of 2023 ``` 2INSPECTOR OF POLICE EAST KALLADA POLICE STATION, EAST KALLADA P.O. KOLLAM, PIN - 691502 3ASVIN, AGED 24 YEARS RESIDING AT ASVIN NIVAS, THEKKE MURI, NEAR ST.ANTONY"S CHURCH, EAST KALLADA VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK, EAST KALLADA P.O. KOLLAM, PIN - 691502 BY ADV Arun Babu ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` SRI HRITHWIK CS, PP ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` -3- Crl.M.C No. 9926 of 2023 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** ====================================================== Crl.M.C No. 9926 of 2023 ============================================================= Dated this the 21[st] day of December, 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 CC No.113 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Sasthamcotta, arising from Crime No.326 of 2021 of East Kallad Police Station, Kollam. The above case is charge sheeted alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 323, 324 read with 149 IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and wrongfully restraining the victim and assaulted the victim and victim sustained injury. 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 victim in support of his contention. The counsel appearing for the victim also -4- Crl.M.C No. 9926 of 2023 submitted that the matter is settled and the victim has 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, victim and the Public Prosecutor and has also gone through the records including the affidavit filed by the victim. 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 -5- Crl.M.C No. 9926 of 2023 _**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;_ _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_ -6- Crl.M.C No. 9926 of 2023 _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 conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he_ -7- Crl.M.C No. 9926 of 2023 _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 CC No.113 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Sasthamcotta, arising from Crime No.326 of 2021 of East Kallad Police Station, Kollam are quashed. sd/- ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** das -8- Crl.M.C No. 9926 of 2023 ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 9926/2023`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ``` ``` Annexure A1 ``` ``` THE COPY OF THE F.I. R & F.I. S DATED 20.03.2021 IN EAST KALLADA P.S.CRIME NO. 326 OF 2021 IN THE C.C.NO.113 OF 2021 ON THE FILES OF J.F.M.C, SASTHAMCOTTA ``` ``` Annexure A2THE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED IN THE C.C.NO.113 OF 2021 ON THE FILES OF THE J.F.M.C, SASTHAMCOTTA Annexure A3THE NOTARISED COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 25.09.2023 ```