High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed

Visakh, Rahul, Vishnu Kumar alias Jithu, Rohith v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:CRL.MC 5758 of 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date
2023-10-03
Court Decision / Holding
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. All further proceedings in C.C.No.2774/2017 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (Temporary), Neyyattinkara arising from Crime No.1049/2017 of Nemom Police Station are quashed.
Final Disposition
Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Visakh
  • Rahul
  • Vishnu Kumar alias Jithu
  • Rohith

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
  • Pradeep Kumar
  • Station House Officer Nemom Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Adv. M.R. Sasith

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Adv. Rajitha V.K

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case (CRL.MC 5758 of 2023) arises from C.C.2774/2017 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (Temporary), Neyyattinkara, connected to Nemom Police Station Crime No.1049/2017. The petition, under Section 482 CrPC, seeks quashing of the criminal proceedings on the basis that the parties have resolved their dispute and do not wish to pursue the prosecution. The accused — Visakh, Rahul, Vishnu Kumar alias Jithu, and Rohith — are charged with offences under sections 458, 427, 294(b), and 506(i) read with section 34 IPC. The prosecution case alleges assault, use of filthy language, and criminal intimidation. The petitioners rely on the victim’s affidavit confirming settlement and no objection to quashing. The Public Prosecutor expresses reservations about quashing solely on settlement but concedes that the matter is settled. The court invokes the guiding principles from State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) and related precedents (Gian Singh; Narinder Singh) to hold that non‑compoundable offences, where the dispute is private and the parties have settled, may be quashed under S.482 CrPC provided there is no serious public interest, heinous element, or statutory bar. On considering the records and antecedents, the court finds the dispute private in nature, accepts the settlement, and allows the CRL.MC, quashing all further proceedings in CC 2774/2017.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)Section 458 IPCSection 427 IPCSection 294(b) IPCSection 506(i) IPCSection 34 IPCPrevention of Corruption ActArms ActSection 307 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Power under S.482 CrPC to quash non‑compoundable offences in private disputes upon settlement
  • Offences of heinous/serious nature (e.g., murder, rape, dacoity) are not quashed under S.482
  • Offences under special statutes (e.g., Prevention of Corruption Act) or by public servants are not quashed merely on compromise
  • Offences under S.307 IPC and Arms Act are not to be quashed; court may assess whether S.307 is genuinely invoked (injury analysis, evidence post-investigation)
  • Antecedents and conduct of the accused to be considered while exercising S.482 powers
  • Settlement in private disputes can be a valid ground to quash where it does not undermine public interest

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that the dispute between the accused and the victim has been amicably settled and the parties do not wish to pursue prosecution. The victim’s affidavit in support, confirming settlement and no objection to quashing, is central to the prayer. Citing the settled nature of the dispute, and drawing on the principles laid down in the Laxmi Narayan line of cases, they contend that quashing the proceedings under S.482 CrPC is appropriate where the offence is non‑compoundable but private in nature and the settlement effectively ends the dispute. They acknowledge the offences charged (Secs. 458, 427, 294(b), 506(i) r/w 34 IPC) but argue that the public interest does not demand continuation where there is no ongoing harm to society and where the dispute concerns private individuals.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor acknowledges the settlement but initially expresses reservations about quashing solely on the basis of compromise, emphasizing the need to consider public interest and the seriousness of certain offences. However, recognizing that the matter is settled between the parties, the Prosecutor does not oppose the settlement in principle. The State argues that Court scrutiny is essential to ensure there is no genuine threat to the social order, and directs the Court to examine the nature of the offences and the possibility of extending settlement to quash only where justified by law and precedent.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others2019 (5) SCC 688PositiveCited as governing principle; three-judge bench endorses quashing of non‑compoundable offences in private disputes when settled; adopted for the present case.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another2012 (10) SCC 303Mentioned OnlyCited in Laxmi Narayan's discussion; not independently relied upon in the present judgment.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others2014 (6) SCC 466Mentioned OnlyCited in the context of the Laxmi Narayan decision; no direct application or ruling in this case.

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 Visakh, Rahul, Vishnu Kumar alias Jithu, Rohith 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 TUESDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 11TH ASWINA, 1945** **CRL.MC NO. 5758 OF 2023** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT in CC 2774/2017 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,NEYYATTINKARA (TEMPORARY)** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4:** 1 VISAKH AGED 26 YEARS S/O VIJAYAN, NEDIYAVILA HOUSE, SISU MANDIRAM ROAD, PERINGGAMMALA, KALLIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695042 2 RAHUL AGED 28 YEARS S/O VIJAYAN, NEDIYAVILA HOUSE, SISU MANDIRAM ROAD, PERINGGAMMALA, KALLIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695042 3 VISHNU KUMAR ALIAS JITHU AGED 31 YEARS S/O SUDARSAN, KULATHINKARA VISHNU BHAVAN, SISU MANDIRAM ROAD, PERINGGAMMALA, KALLIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695042 4 ROHITH AGED 36 YEARS S/O VIJAYAN, NEDIYAVILA HOUSE, SISU MANDIRAM ROAD, PERINGGAMMALA, KALLIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695042 BY ADV M.R.SASITH ## **RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/STATE:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 PRADEEP KUMAR AGED 45 YEARS S/O KRISHNA PANICKER, KULATHINKARA VEEDU, SISU MANDIRAM ROAD, PERINGGAMMALA, KALLIYOOR VILLAGE, CRL.MC No.5758 of 2023 2 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695042 3 STATION HOUSE OFFICER NEMOM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695020 BY ADV RAJITHA V.K ## **OTHER PRESENT:** M.P PRASANTH PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.MC No.5758 of 2023 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** CRL.MC No.5758 of 2023 **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** Dated this the 3[rd] day of October, 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. The petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.2774/2017 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (Temporary), Neyyattinkara arising from Crime No.1049/2017 of Nemom Police Station. The above case is charge sheeted against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 458, 427, 294(b), 506(i) r/w Section 34 IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused assaulted the victim and used filthy language and criminally intimidated the victim. 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 CRL.MC No.5758 of 2023 4 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. 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.** CRL.MC No.5758 of 2023 5 ## **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;_ _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_ CRL.MC No.5758 of 2023 6 _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 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 CRL.MC No.5758 of 2023 7 and the settlement can be accepted. Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous case is allowed. All further proceedings in C.C.No.2774/2017 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (Temporary), Neyyattinkara arising from Crime No.1049/2017 of Nemom Police Station are quashed. Sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** bng CRL.MC No.5758 of 2023 8 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5758/2023** PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure-A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 1049/2017 OF NEMOM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REGISTERED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 20-05-2017 Annexure-A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Annexure3 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED 10-07-2023.