Vahanan @ Dinesan v. State of Kerala and Symala and Sukumara Pillai

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH THURSDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 22ND POUSHA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 9057 OF 2022** **CRIME NO.543/2006 OF Venjaramoodu Police Station,** **Thiruvananthapuram** **SC 1555/2009 OF SUB COURT, NEDUMANGAD** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:** VAHANAN @ DINESAN, AGED 40 YEARS VATTAVILLA HOUSE KOTTUKUNNAM (PO) NELLANADU VILLAGE,THIRUVANATHAPURAM, PIN - 695606 BY ADVS.M.R.SARIN M.R.SASITH p. santhoshkumar LEKSHMI S.R AJI S. SNEHA JOY ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031 2 SYMALA AGED 67 YEARS D/O BHARGAVI AMMA GANAPATHY SADANAM, NEAR KOTTUKUNNAM SIVAN KOVIL KOTTUKUNNAM P.O, NELLANADU VILLAGE THIRUVANATHAPURAM, PIN - 695606 Crl.M.C.No.9057/2022 -:2:- 3 SUKUMARA PILLAI, AGED 79 YEARS S/O PARAMESWARAN PILLAI , DILEEP BHAVAN, KOTTUKUNNAM P.O NELLANADU VILLAGE THIRUVANATHAPURAM, PIN - 695606 BY ADV RAJITHA V.K SMT. T.V. NEEMA, SR. PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.No.9057/2022 ## -:3:- ## **O R D E R** Dated this the 12[th] day of January, 2023 This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure A1 Final Report in S.C.No.1555/2009 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Nedumangad on the ground of settlement between the parties. 2. The petitioner is the accused No.2. The 2[nd] respondent is the defacto complainant and the 3[rd] respondent is the injured. 3. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 326, 308 and 427 of IPC. 4. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 entered appearance through counsel. Affidavits sworn in by them are also produced. 5. I have heard Sri. M.R. Sarin, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Adv. Rajitha V.K., the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Smt. T.V. Neema, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Crl.M.C.No.9057/2022 -:4:- 6. The averments in the petition as well as the affidavits sworn in by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 would show that the entire dispute between the accused No.2 and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has been amicably settled and they have decided not to proceed with the crime against the accused No.2 any further. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instruction, submits that the matter was inquired into through the investigating officer, and a statement of the de facto complainant was also recorded wherein she reported that the dispute with the accused No.2 was amicably settled. 7. The Apex Court in _**Gian Singh v. State of Punjab**_ [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)], _**Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others**_ [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and _**State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others**_ [(2019) 5 SCC 688] has held that the High Court invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C can quash criminal proceedings in relation to non-compoundable offence where the parties have settled the matter between themselves notwithstanding the bar under S.320 of Cr.P.C. if it is warranted in the given facts and circumstances of the case or to Crl.M.C.No.9057/2022 -:5:- ensure ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court. 8. It is true that the settlement was arrived at between the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and the accused No.2 alone, who is the petitioner. No settlement was arrived at with the remaining accused. Hence, the question is whether the FIR/Final Report against some of the accused alone could be quashed on the ground of settlement invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C. The Apex Court _**in Lovely Salhotra and Another v. State NCT of Delhi and Another**_ [(2018) 12 SCC 391] quashed the proceedings against one of the accused alone, invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C. That was a case where the High Court refused to quash the proceeding holding that the FIR cannot be quashed in part. True, in the said case, the Apex Court had taken into account the facts of the case that no cognizable offence was made out. The Apex Court, on facts, also found that no offence was made out against the appellant/accused therein. However, the principle that could be deduced from the dictum laid down in the said decision is that it is not impermissible to quash the FIR _qua_ some of the accused Crl.M.C.No.9057/2022 -:6:- alone, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. This Court in _**Sajeev & Another v. State of Kerala and Another**_ (2022 (3) KHC 69), has held that it is permissible to quash the proceedings against some of the accused alone on the ground of settlement depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. In these circumstances, I hold that it is permissible in law to quash the FIR or Final Report only against one or some of the accused on the ground of settlement, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted that as the dispute between the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3 is amicably settled, they have no objection whatsoever if the final report is quashed only against the petitioner. The dispute in the above case is purely personal in nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure A1 as against the petitioner. The offences in question do not fall within the category of offences prohibited for compounding in terms of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in _**Gian Singh**_ (supra), Crl.M.C.No.9057/2022 ## -:7:- ## _**Narinder Singh**_ (supra) and _**Laxmi Narayan**_ (supra). For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that no purpose will be served in proceeding with the matter further. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings pursuant to Annexure A1 Final Report in S.C.No.1555/2009 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Nedumangad as against the petitioner/accused No.2 alone hereby stand quashed. Sd/- **DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH** **JUDGE** **kp** Crl.M.C.No.9057/2022 ## -:8:- ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 9057/2022** PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN SC NO: 1555/2009 ON THE FILES OF ASSISTANT SESSION COURT NEDUMANANGAD, THIRUVANATHAPURAM JAVASCRIPT:VOID(0)DISTRI. AnnexureA2 THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT SOLEMNLY AFFIRMED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Annexure A3 THE ORGINAL AFFIDAVIT SOLEMNLY AFFIRMED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT