High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-08-02Petition allowed; proceedings quashed and final...

Vishak P. and others v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:CRL.MC NO.7136 OF 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date: 2023-08-02
Court Decision / Holding: This petition is allowed. Annexure-2 Final Report in Crime No. 395/2019 of Dharmadom Police Station and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners as C.C No. 142/2020 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thalassery, are quashed.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; proceedings quashed and final report quashed; C.C No. 142/2020 and related proceedings terminated."}

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Vishak P.
Lijin P.
Sreenish P.S.
Saneesh V.
Nikil N.S.
Rajesh O.

Respondents

State of Kerala rep. by SHO, Dharmadam Police Station, through Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P. Premarajan

Counsels for Respondents

• V. Binoy Ram
• M. C. Ashi, PP

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC filed in the Kerala High Court challenging Cr. No. 395/2019 (final report) and the connected proceedings in C.C. No. 142/2020 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Thalassery. The petition, brought by Vishak P. and five others impleaded as Addl. P2–P6, seeks quashing of the criminal proceedings arising from alleged offences under IPC Sections 143, 147, 148 read with 149, and Arms Act Sections 4 and 25(1-B)(b). The prosecution claims that on 27-08-2019 the accused formed an unlawful assembly, threatened the informant, and attempted to influence his election nomination. The petitioners contend that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and do not wish to pursue the prosecution, supported by an affidavit from the second respondent; they rely on prior law including Jinu v. State of Kerala and argue that the Arms Act offences are not attracted as the area is not notified under the Arms Act. The Public Prosecutor expresses reservations about quashing solely on settlement but notes there have been no other serious offences by the petitioners. The High Court reviews decisions like State of MP v. Laxmi Narayan, Gian Singh, and Narinder Singh to frame the scope of 482 CrPC quashing for private, non-compoundable offences, especially where the dispute is settled. Ultimately, the court allows the petition, quashing the proceedings and the final report, on the premise that consummation of an amicable settlement and lack of societal harm warrants withdrawal of prosecution in this case.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Sections 143, 147, 148 r/w 149 of IPCSection 4 of the Arms ActSection 25(1-B)(b) of the Arms Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Amicable settlement/private disputes can justify quashing non-compoundable offences under Section 482 CrPC when the offences are predominantly civil/private in nature.
Offences of a heinous or serious nature (e.g., murder, rape, dacoity) and offences under special statutes or by public servants are generally not quashed merely on compromise.
In cases involving arms or serious violence (e.g., Section 307 IPC, Arms Act), quashing is not automatic; the court may assess the evidence after investigation and charge framing.
The antecedents and conduct of the accused, including whether there was absconding, are relevant to the decision.
The principle should be applied harmoniously with leading decisions (e.g., Narinder Singh, Gian Singh).

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petition emphasizes that the parties have resolved their disputes amicably and no longer desire prosecution. An affidavit from the 2nd respondent supports withdrawal. The petition relies on the principle formulated in Jinu v. State of Kerala and argues that since the alleged Arms Act offences were not in a notified area, they do not attract the Arms Act, so quashing should be permissible under Section 482 CrPC for private, non-serious offences arising from private disputes. The petition asserts that the gravity of the charges and the potential for successful conviction are unlikely, and continuing the prosecution would hinder reconciliation and peace in the community. The petitioner asserts there is no public-interest harm or ongoing menace, and trade-offs in private settlements should be favored to secure ends of justice.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents, through the Public Prosecutor, contest quashing on the sole basis of settlement, emphasizing that the offences are non-compoundable but may have broader social impact. They contend that the law, as clarified by leading Supreme Court judgments (Gian Singh, Narinder Singh), requires careful balancing between settlement and societal interest, particularly where serious offences or armed offences are involved. They highlight the need to examine the factual matrix, the nature of injuries and weapons, and whether the charge includes Section 307 IPC or Arms Act elements as a measure of public harm. While conceding no other serious crimes by petitioners, they urge the Court to exercise prudence, ensuring that surveillance and public safety are not compromised, and that the quashing does not undermine the integrity of criminal justice.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan	[(2019) 5 SCC 688]	Positive	Used to outline the permissible scope of quashing non-compoundable offences when the dispute is civil/private and has been settled.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	(2012) 10 SCC 303	Positive	Cited as part of the framework clarifying when quashing can or cannot be done, including the seriousness of certain offences.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	2014 (6) SCC 466	Positive	Cited to harmonize the approach toward non-compoundable offences and the role of societal impact.
Jinu v. State of Kerala	2017 (4) KLT 895	Mentioned Only	Relied upon for related principles, but not the controlling basis for quashing in the present facts.

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 Vishak P. and others 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.

``` INTHEHIGHCOURTOFKERALAATERNAKULAM PRESENT ``` ``` THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV WEDNESDAY,THE2[ND]DAYOFAUGUST2023/11THSRAVANA,1945 CRL.MCNO.7136OF2022 ``` ``` AGAINSTTHEORDERINC.C.NO.142/2020OFJUDICIALMAGISTRATEOF FIRSTCLASS,THALASSERY ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED :`** - **`1 VISHAK.P, AGED 30 YEARS S/O. RAGHAVAN, VIGNESWARA HOUSE, KANNAVAM P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 650, PIN - 670650`** - **`ADDL.P2 TO P6 ARE IMPLEADED :-`** - **`2 LIJIN.P.S/O ASHOKAN,AGED 33 YEARS, SREERAGAM HOUSE,SREE NARAYANA MADAM, KANNAVAM P.O., KANAVAM,KANNUR`** - **`3 SREENISH.P.S/O SREEDHARAN,, AGED 33 YEARS,VAYAKKODAN HOUSE, KANNAVAM P.O., KANNAVAM, KANNUR`** - **`4 SANEESH.V., S/O BALAN, AGED 35 YEARS, THACHANKANDY HOUSE, NEAR SREE NARAYANA MADAM, KANNAVAM P.O. , KANNAVAM, KANNUR`** - **`5 NIKIL.N.S/O MANI, AGED 30 YEARS, THAIKANDIYIL HOUSE, NEAR SREE NARAYANA MADAM, KANNAVAM P.O., KANNAVAM, KANNUR`** - **`6 RAJESH.O,S/O VIJAYAN.P., AGED 47 YEARS, UZHINJAL HOUSE, NEAR SREE NARAYANA MADAM, KANNAVAM P.O. KANNAVAM, KANNUR`** ``` *ADDL.P2TOP6AREIMPLEADEDASPERORDERINCRL.M.A.NO.1 OF2023INCRL.M.C.NO.7136OF2022DTD.24.07.2023. ``` ## **`BY ADV P.PREMARAJAN`** ## **`- RESPONDENTD/COMPLAINANT/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT :`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY SHO DHARMADAM POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031`** ``` CRL.MCNO.7136OF2022 ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` 2SANIEA.O,AGED21YEARS D/O.PAVITHRAN,ALAMULLAPARAMBATHHOUSE, NEARKUNNOTHUPARAMBA,PUTHURP.O, KANNURDISTRICT,PIN-670692 ``` ``` BYADVV.BINOYRAM SRI.M.C.ASHI,PP ``` ``` THISCRIMINALMISC.CASEHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON 02.08.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYPASSEDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` ``` CRL.MCNO.7136OF2022 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **ORDER** This petition is filed invoking the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for the sake of brevity). 2. The petitioners herein are the accused in C.C.No.142 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Thalassery, registered for the offenses punishable under Sections 143, 147, and 148 r/w Section 149 of the IPC and Section 4, 25 (1-B)(b) of the Arms Act. 3. The prosecution allegation, as borne out from the records, are as under: On 27.08.2019, the accused are alleged to have formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, threatened the informant and demanded that he withdraw his nomination to contest the election. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties have settled their dispute and do not wish to pursue the prosecution proceedings. He relies on the affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent in support of his contention. Counsel argues that if the proceedings are terminated, with the recording of the amicable settlement, the parties can move forward in an atmosphere of peace and ``` CRL.MCNO.7136OF2022 ``` ``` 4 ``` mutual respect. Reliance is placed on the law laid down in **Jinu v. State of Kerala** [2017 (4) KLT 895] and it is submitted that as the area where the offense was committed is not a notified area under the Arms Act, 1959, the offenses under the Arms Act will not be attracted. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, has expressed reservations about quashing the proceedings solely on the basis of the settlement. He argues that the facts and circumstances may not warrant the exercise of the court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, it is fairly submitted that there have been no other crimes of serious nature registered against the petitioners to date. It is further submitted that the statement of the party respondent has been recorded, and he has unequivocally stated that he does not have any lasting grievances. 6. I have considered the submissions and have gone through the records. 7. In **State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan,[1]** , a three-judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has summarized the law as laid down in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab[2]** , **Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab[3]** and in subsequent cases. It was laid down as under: 15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this > 1 [(2019) 5 SCC 688] > 2 (2012) 10 SCC 303 > 3 2014 (6) SCC 466 ``` CRL.MCNO.7136OF2022 ``` ``` 5 ``` Court on the point referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under: - 15.1. That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 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; - 15.2. 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; - 15.3. Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like the 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; - 15.4. Offences under Section 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 Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act, etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 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 Section 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 Section 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 Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it ``` CRL.MCNO.7136OF2022 ``` ``` 6 ``` would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate 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 paras 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; 15.5. While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offenses, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impact 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. Having carefully analyzed the prayer sought for in the light of the principles laid down as above and also the nature of the allegations, the gravity of the offense, the antecedents of the accused, and the amicable relationship that now exists between the parties, I am of the considered opinion that quashing the proceedings on the basis of the settlement will not have any adverse impact on society. In fact, it ``` CRL.MCNO.7136OF2022 ``` ``` 7 ``` would only serve to bring about peace and secure the ends of justice. Additionally, persisting with the prosecution would be a waste of time, as the prospects of conviction are bleak. In light of all of the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court would be well justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings This petition is allowed. Annexure-2 Final Report in Crime No.395 of 2019 of the Dharmadom Police Station and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners as C.C No.142 of 2020 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thalassery, are quashed. ``` Sd/- ``` **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE** SMA ``` CRL.MCNO.7136OF2022 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7136/2022`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES :-`** |**`Annexure `**|**`1`**|**`CERTIFIED`** **`COPY`** **`OF`** **`THE`** **`FIRST`** **`INFORMATION`**| |---|---|---| |||**`REPORT IN CRIME NO. 395/2019 OF DHARMADOM`**| |||**`POLICE`** **`STATION`** **`DATED`** **`27-08-2019`** **`NOW`**| |||**`PENDING`** **`AS`** **`C.C`** **`142/2020`** **`BEFORE`** **`THE`**| |||**`JUDICIAL`** **`FIRST`** **`CLASS`** **`MAGISTRATE`** **`COURT,`**| |||**`THALASSERY`**| |**`Annexure `**|**`2`**|**`CERTIFIED`** **`COPY`** **`OF`** **`THE`** **`FINAL REPORT DATED`**| |||**`18-01-2020`** **`IN`** **`CR.`** **`NO:`** **`395/2019`** **`OF`**| |||**`DHARMADOM`** **`POLICE`** **`STATION`** **`NOW`** **`PENDING`** **`AS`**| |||**`C.C`** **`142/2020`** **`BEFORE`** **`THE`** **`JUDICIAL`** **`FIRST`**| |||**`CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, THALASSERY`**| |**`Annexure3`**||**`TRUE`** **`COPY`** **`OF`** **`THE`** **`MARRIAGE`** **`CERTIFICATE`**| |||**`DATED 18-02-2020`**| |**`Annexure `**|**`4`**|**`TRUE`** **`COPY`** **`OF`** **`THE`** **`UK`** **`ENTRY`** **`CLEARANCE`** **`OF`**| |||**`WIFE OF THE PETITIONER DATED 12-08-2022`**| |**`Annexure `**|**`5`**|**`TRUE`** **`COPY`** **`OF`** **`THE`** **`CERTIFICATE`** **`OF`**| |||**`SPONSORSHIP`** **`DETAILS`** **`OF`** **`WIFE`** **`OF`** **`THE`**| |||**`PETITIONER DATED NIL`**| |**`Annexure `**|**`6`**|**`ORIGINAL`** **`AFFIDAVIT`** **`SWORN`** **`BY`** **`THE`** **`1ST`**| |||**`RESPONDENT DATED 06-09-2022`**| |**`Annexure `**|**`7`**|**`TAX`** **`INVOICE`** **`BEARING`** **`NO.`** **`184`** **`DATED`**| |||**`24.08.2019 ISSUED FROM A.B STORES, IRITTY`**| |**`Annexure `**|**`8`**|**`TAX`** **`INVOICE`** **`BEARING`** **`NO.`** **`797`** **`DATED`**| |||**`05.07.2022 ISSUED FROM A.B STORES, IRITTY`**|