Vimal and Others v. Sadananda Panikar and State of Kerala and Kerala State Electricity Board

``` CRL.MC NO. 9643 OF 2023 ``` ``` 1 ``` # **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 9643 OF 2023 ``` ``` CRIME NO.1722/2013 OF Pathanamthitta Police Station, ``` ## **`Pathanamthitta`** ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:`** ``` 1VIMAL AGED 34 YEARS S/O. VIJAYARAJAN NAKKARA VELLAVOOR HOUSE THAZHAM P.O. MALAYALAPPUZHA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689666 2SUMESH @SHAMBHU AGED 34 YEARS S/O PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR KALARTHUTHIYIL HOUSE THAZHAM P.O MALAYALAPPUZHA PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689666 3ANOOP @UNNI AGED 30 YEARS S/O BALACHANDRAN NAIR VARAVANOOR HOUSE THAZHAM P.O MALAYALAPPUZHA PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689666 4RAJESH @JUDO RAJESH AGED 31 YEARS S/O RAJAN CHERADI THEKKECHERUVIL HOUSE THAZHAM P.O MALAYALAPPUZHA PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689666 5PRASANTH AGED 32 YEARS S/O PRASANNAN NAIR KIZHAKKEMURIYIL HOUSE THAZHAM P.O MALAYALAPPUZHA PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689666 6VISHNU @APPU AGED 31 YEARS S/O PRASAD JISHNU VILASAM MALAYALAPPUZHA, THAZHAM MURI MALAYALAPPUZHA VILLEGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689666 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 9643 OF 2023 ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` 7JISHNU @VAVA AGED 29 YEARS S/O PRASAD JISHNU VILASAM MALAYALAPPUZHA, THAZHAM MURI MALAYALAPPUZHA VILLEGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689666 ``` ``` BY ADV AJEESH K.SASI ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1SADANANDA PANIKAR AGED 73 YEARS S/O NANU NAIR PULLAMPLAVIL HOUSE MALAYALAPPUZHA THAZAM MURI KONNI TALUK PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689666 2STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 3KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY CHIEF ENGINEER, MALAYALAPPUZHA, CHENGARA DIVISION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT -689664 BY ADVS. SREELAKSHMI SABU ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION(AG-10) P.NARAYANAN, SENIOR G.P. AND ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR() ``` ``` SMT SREEJA V, PP ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 9643 OF 2023 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------Crl.M.C. No. 9643 of 2023** **---------------------------------------------Dated this the 19[th] day of December, 2023** ## **O R D E R** This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for the sake of brevity). 2. The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 7 in Crime No. 1722 of 2013 of Pathanamthitta Police Station . The above case is charge sheeted alleging offence punishable under Sections. 143, 147, 148, 149, 427 & 506(ii) IPC and Section 139 of Electricity Act is also alleged. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused, who are members of RSS and BJP having political enmity towards defacto complainant, a worker of CPM, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly in prosecution of their common object and criminally trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and damaged the glasses of windows, maruthi car and jeep kept in the car porch and electricity meter and light. It is submitted that the matter is settled with the victim. This ``` CRL.MC NO. 9643 OF 2023 ``` ``` 4 ``` court directed the petitioners to implead the Kerala State Electricity Board also. While the petitioners were granting bail as per Annexure -2 order, this court directed the petitioners to deposit an amount of Rs.15000/- in a nationalised bank in favour of the learned Magistrate, because the offence under Section. 139 of Electricity Act is also included. Now the Standing Counsel appearing for the KSEB submitted that the amount deposited may be allowed to withdraw by the KSEB. I think that can be allowed and the settlement can be accepted. 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 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. ``` CRL.MC NO. 9643 OF 2023 ``` ``` 5 ``` 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 **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_ ``` CRL.MC NO. 9643 OF 2023 ``` ``` 6 ``` ## _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 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_ ``` CRL.MC NO. 9643 OF 2023 ``` ``` 7 ``` _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 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 Crime No. 1722/2013 of Pathanamthitta Police Station, including the final report filed before the jurisdictional court are quashed. The 3[rd] ``` CRL.MC NO. 9643 OF 2023 ``` ``` 8 ``` respondent is free to approach the jurisdictional court for getting the amount deposited by the petitioners as per Annexure -2 order and if such an application is filed the amount will be disbursed to the 3[rd] respondent. **Sd/P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** sms ``` CRL.MC NO. 9643 OF 2023 ``` ``` 9 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 9643/2023`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure-1TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1772/2013 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION Annexure-2TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.11.2013 IN B.A.NO.7927/2013 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT Annexure-3TRUE COPY OF THE REMAND APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE POLICE BEFORE THE COURT OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PATHANAMTHITTA SEEKING CUSTODY OF 6TH AND 7TH PETITIONER ```