High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeThe case was disposed of by quashing the crimin...

VINOJ I M v. State of Kerala and Kerala State Co-operative Consumers Federation Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:CRL. M.C. NO5391 OF 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date
2023-10-16
Court Decision / Holding
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner in CC 593/2020 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, arising from Crime No.1361/2016, are quashed.
Final Disposition
The case was disposed of by quashing the criminal proceedings; the petition under Sec. 482 CrPC was allowed and CC 593/2020 was quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • VINOJ I M

Respondents

  • STATE OF KERALA
  • MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE CONSUMERS FEDERATION LTD.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • K.S. ARUN KUMAR
  • • SRUTHY UNNIKRISHNAN
  • • AMRUTHA P S
  • • JERIN JOSEPH
  • • SAQIB RIZWAN
  • • ELDHO BABY
  • • AMRUTHA K P
  • • ARYA B. VENUGOPAL
  • • VIJAY SANKAR V.H.

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Smt. SREEJA. V
  • • Sri. M. SASINDRAN

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court of Kerala judgment, delivered by Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan, deals with a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under section 482 CrPC seeking to quash CC 593/2020 arising from Crime No. 1361/2016 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station. The petitioner, Vinoj I M, is the first accused in the case, which charges offences under IPC sections 408, 409, and 477 read with 34. The second accused had already been quashed in a prior order, and the parties have resolved their dispute through an out-of-court settlement. The victim has filed an affidavit supporting the settlement, stating no grievance. While the Public Prosecutor reserved objections to quashing solely on the basis of settlement, he conceded that the matter is settled. The court examined Supreme Court precedent, notably State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan & Others (2019) 5 SCC 688, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, ruling that the power under Sec. 482 CrPC can quash non-compoundable offences when the dispute is civil/private, the parties have resolved it, and the offences are not of a heinous or public-society nature. Applying this doctrine, the court found the dispute private, accepted the settlement, and quashed the proceedings in CC 593/2020, allowing the Criminal Miscellaneous Case. The order underscores the balance between private settlements and public-interest concerns in quashing non-compoundable offences.

Provisions of Law Cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 482)Indian Penal Code (Sections 408, 409, 477 r/w 34)Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 320)Section 307 IPCArms ActPrevention of Certain Acts Concerning Public Servants Act (POCSO/POCA as applicable)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Power under Section 482 CrPC to quash non-compoundable offences when the dispute is civil/private and parties have resolved it
  • Not to exercise the power for heinous and serious offences such as murder, rape, dacoity, etc.
  • Offences under special statutes (e.g., Prevention of Corruption Act) or offences by public servants are not to be quashed merely on compromise
  • Offences like Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act are acts against society and generally not quashed on settlement
  • Antecedents and conduct of the accused (e.g., absconding, manner of entry into the compromise) must be considered by the court when exercising the power to quash

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the parties have amicably resolved the dispute and the victim has filed an affidavit indicating no grievance. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Laxmi Narayan, Gian Singh, and Narinder Singh, the petitioner seeks quashing under Sec. 482 CrPC, arguing that the offences are non‑compoundable but private in nature and settled between the parties. Given the private, civil character of the dispute and the absence of any ongoing grievance, the petitioner urges quashment of CC 593/2020.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor, while acknowledging the settlement, cautions against granting quashment solely on the basis of an agreement between the victim and the accused. He cautions that offences of a serious, public-interest nature (e.g., those under the IPC’s heinous categories or under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act) should not be quashed merely due to private settlement. Nevertheless, he concedes the matter is settled and urges a careful examination of the settled nature of the dispute within the framework of the cited precedents.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others2019 (5) SCC 688PositiveCited as the leading authority clarifying that Sec. 482 CrPC can be used to quash non-compoundable offences in private, settled disputes, with limits on serious offences.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another2012 (10) SCC 303PositiveCited for its discussion on the scope of quashing non‑compoundable offences where disputes are settled.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another2014 (6) SCC 466PositiveCited regarding elements of when and how quashing may be considered in light of settlement, including evaluation of evidence and charge framing concepts.

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 VINOJ I M v. State of Kerala and Kerala State Co-operative Consumers Federation Ltd. 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 ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 16[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 24TH ASWINA, 1945 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 5391 OF 2023 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 593/2020 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF ``` ## **`JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED:`** ``` VINOJ I M AGED 43 YEARS, S/O MANI, ELLATHUKUDI (H) PONJASSERY P.O, NORTH AZHEEPURAMKARA ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683547 ``` ``` BY ADVS. K.S.ARUN KUMAR SRUTHY UNNIKRISHNAN AMRUTHA P S JERIN JOSEPH SAQIB RIZWAN ELDHO BABY AMRUTHA K P ARYA B. VENUGOPAL VIJAY SANKAR V.H. ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS /STATE AND COMPLAINANTS:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 ``` ``` 2MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE CONSUMERS FEDERATION LTD., GANDHINAGAR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682020 ``` ## **`BY ADVS.`** ``` SMT. SREEJA. V PP SRI. M. SASINDRAN ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ``` ``` ON 16.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2 ``` CRL. M.C. NO.5391 OF 2023 ``` **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------Crl.M.C. No. 5391 of 2023 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 16[th] day of October, 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. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.593/2020 on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam arising from Crime No.1361/2016 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station, in which the petitioner is the 1[st] accused. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 408,409, 477 r/w 34 of IPC. 3. It is submitted that the case against the 3 ``` CRL. M.C. NO.5391 OF 2023 ``` second accused is quashed by this Court as per Annexure-l order. It is also submitted that the case is already settled and the victim has no grievance. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner 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. 4 ``` CRL. M.C. NO.5391 OF 2023 ``` 6. This Court has considered the submission of the petitioner, 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: ``` CRL. M.C. NO.5391 OF 2023 ``` 5 “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 cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under S.482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties ``` CRL. M.C. NO.5391 OF 2023 ``` 6 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.5391 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 petitioner in C.C. No.593/2020 on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam arising from Crime No.1361/2016 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station, are quashed. Sd/- nvj ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** ``` CRL. M.C. NO.5391 OF 2023 ``` 8 ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5391/2023`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ``` - `ANNEXURE-I A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.01.2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN CRL.M.C NO. 9053/2019` - `ANNEXURE-II A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC NO. 593/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, AT ERNAKULAM DATED 02.09.2017` - `ANNEXURE-III A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO. 4845 DATED 09.07.2018 ISSUED BY THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE CONSUMER'S FEDERATION LTD` - `ANNEXURE-IV A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO. 4901 DATED 25.07.2018 ISSUED BY THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE CONSUMER'S FEDERATION LTD` - `ANNEXURE-V A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.08.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT` RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS :NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE