High Court of KeralaSingle JudgePetition allowed; criminal proceedings quashed

Vishnu v. Praveen and State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:CRL.MC NO. 5027 OF 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date
2023-08-18
Court Decision / Holding
Resultantly, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A1 Final Report in Crime No.682/2022 of Munambam Police Station and all further proceedings pending against the petitioner as S.C.No.1331/2022 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Kochi are quashed.
Final Disposition
Petition allowed; criminal proceedings quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Vishnu

Respondents

  • Praveen
  • State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Adv. B. Rekha

Counsels for Respondents

  • • K. S. Sreeraj
  • • Athira Hari Das (K/1121/2022)
  • • Smt. Neemat V., Sr. P.P.

Case Synopsis & Summary

Vishnu, the petitioner in CRL.MC No. 5027 of 2023, seeks quashing of SC No. 1331 of 2022 under Section 482 CrPC before the Kerala High Court, Kochi. The accused, Vishnu, faces charges under Sections 323, 324 and 307 IPC. The prosecution alleges that on 27.06.2022, Vishnu, the brother of the de facto complainant, assaulted him with a knife, causing injuries. The petition emphasizes an amicable settlement between the parties and asserts that they do not wish to pursue the prosecution, supported by an affidavit from the first respondent. The investigating officer was directed to verify the settlement’s genuineness and to assess any impediment to termination, including any criminal antecedents. The Public Prosecutor raised concerns about quashing a case that includes a serious offence under Section 307 IPC. The High Court cites a line of Supreme Court decisions—State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab; Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab; State of Rajasthan v. Shambhu Kewat; State of M.P. v. Deepak; State of M.P. v. Manish; J. Ramesh Kamath v. Mohana Kurup; State of M.P. v. Rajveer Singh; Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat; State of M.P. v. Kalyan Singh; State of M.P. v. Dhruv Gurjar—to frame the governing principle that quashing under Section 482 CrPC can be entertained in private, civil-like disputes where the parties have resolved their entire dispute, with exceptions for heinous or public-spirited offences or offences under special statutes. The Court notes that, on applying the law to the facts, the wound certificates indicate non-grave injuries, and the presence of Section 307 in the charge does not by itself justify ongoing prosecution if evidence for a charge under 307 is not established. Given the direct relationship between the parties (brothers) and the absence of enduring grievances, the court concludes that continuing the prosecution would not serve ends of justice. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and all further proceedings in SC No. 1331/2022 and the Final Report (Crime No. 682/2022) are quashed, bringing the matter to a peaceful resolution between the parties.

Provisions of Law Cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482Indian Penal Code - Sections 323, 324, 307Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 320Arms ActSection 307 IPC (in context)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC in predominantly civil/private disputes where disputes have been settled
  • Not to quash for heinous/serious offences (e.g., murder, rape, dacoity) or offences under special statutes
  • Court may examine whether Section 307 IPC is included merely for form or supported by evidence; may consider nature of injuries and weaponry
  • Antecedents and conduct of accused; whether abduction/absconding etc. influenced settlement; ends of justice

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants submit that amicable settlement between Vishnu and the de facto complainant has been achieved, the parties do not wish to pursue the prosecution, and recording the settlement would allow both sides to move forward peacefully. They contend that the entire dispute is civil in nature and qualify for quashing under the inherent powers of the court under Section 482 CrPC, supported by an affidavit from the first respondent confirming the settlement and absence of other impediments or criminal antecedents.

Contentions of Respondents

The State, through the Public Prosecutor, opposes unconditional quashing, noting that the charge includes Section 307 IPC and that quashing in such cases should be approached with caution. The learned advocate for the State underscores that offences of serious impact, or those under special statutes, should not be quashed solely on the basis of a compromise. The Court is urged to verify the sufficiency of evidence for a potential Section 307 charge and to ensure that quashing would not undermine public interest or society.

Cited Precedents (11)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan[(2019) 5 SCC 688]PositiveCited and relied upon for framing the scope of 482 CrPC quashing in private, civil-like disputes where the entire dispute is settled; used to harmonize with the present case.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab[(2012) 10 SCC 303]PositiveCund to principles of quashing under 482 CrPC in settled disputes; foundational to the Court’s approach.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab[(2014) 6 SCC 466]PositiveForms part of the controlling jurisprudence on quashing in private disputes; cited in the Supreme Court’s summary of governing law.
State of Rajasthan v. Shambhu Kewat[(2014) 4 SCC 149]PositiveCited as part of the lineage of decisions guiding quashing in private disputes.
State of M.P. v. Deepak[(2014) 10 SCC 285]PositiveCited to support the private-dispute quashing framework.
State of M.P. v. Manish[(2015) 8 SCC 307]PositiveReinforces the limits and scope of quashing in non-serious offences.
J. Ramesh Kamath v. Mohana Kurup[(2016) 12 SCC 179]PositivePart of the governing line of case law on quashing; cited for framework.
State of M.P. v. Rajveer Singh[(2016) 12 SCC 471]PositiveApplied to clarify private disputes and settlement considerations.
Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat[(2017) 9 SCC 641]PositiveIntegral to the spectrum of quashing in settled private disputes.
State of M.P. v. Kalyan Singh[(2019) 4 SCC 268]PositiveCited as part of the same doctrine on quashing in private disputes.
State of M.P. v. Dhruv Gurjar[(2019) 5 SCC 570]PositiveUsed to consolidate the quashing framework when disputes are settled.

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 Vishnu v. Praveen and 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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V FRIDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 27TH SRAVANA, 1945`** ## **`CRL.MC NO. 5027 OF 2023 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTSC 1131/2022 OF ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, KOCHI`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` VISHNU AGED34YEARS S/OLEKSHMANAN, CHIRATTAPURAKKALHOUSE, - CHERAIP.O,,PIN683514 ``` ``` BYADVK.B.REKHA ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1PRAVEEN AGED34YEARS S/O.LEKSHMANAN, CHIRATTAPURAKKALHOUSE, - CHERAIP.O,,PIN683514 2STATEOFKERALA REPRESENTEDBYPUBLICPROSECUTOR, - HIGHCOURTOFKERALA,PIN682031 ``` ``` BYADVS. K.S.SREERAJ ATHIRAHARIDAS(K/1121/2022) ``` ``` SMT.NEEMATV,SR.PP ``` ``` THISCRIMINALMISC.CASEHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON 18.08.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYPASSEDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` ``` CRL.MCNO.5027OF2023 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **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 petitioner herein is the accused in SC.No. 1331 of 2022 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Kochi. In the said case, he faces indictment for having committed offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 307 of the IPC. 3. The prosecution allegation, as borne out from the records, are as under: On 27.06.2022 at about 6.00 p.m., the accused, who is the brother of the defacto complainant, stabbed him with a knife on his left forearm, causing serious injuries. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the parties have settled their disputes and they are not desirous of pursuing the prosecution proceedings. Reliance is placed on the affidavit filed by the 1st respondent to substantiate his contention. According to the learned counsel, if the proceedings are terminated, recording the amicable settlement, the parties can embark upon their future paths in an atmosphere of tranquility and mutual respect. ``` CRL.MCNO.5027OF2023 ``` ``` 3 ``` 5. When the matter had come up for admission, this Court had directed the investigating officer concerned to record the statement of the de facto complainant/injured/victim and report as to whether the assertion in the petition and the affidavit filed in support that entire disputes have been resolved between the parties concerned is true and genuine. The investigating officer was also directed to report as to whether the petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents and whether there is any other impediment in terminating the criminal proceedings. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor has raised reservations with regard to the prospect of quashing the present proceedings purely on the basis of the settlement. It is urged that the extant circumstances may not warrant the exercise of the court's inherent jurisdiction, as conferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He would highlight that among the offenses against the petitioner in the Charge, the offense under Section 307 of the IPC also has been included. However, it is fairly submitted that no other transgressions or complaints stand registered against the Petitioners hitherto. It is further submitted that the statement of the party respondent has been recorded, and he has unequivocally expressed that he harbor no enduring grievances. ``` CRL.MCNO.5027OF2023 ``` ``` 4 ``` 7. I have considered the submissions and have gone through the records. 8. In **State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan,[1]** a three-judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has summarised the law as laid down in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab[2]** , **Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab[3]** , **State of Rajasthan v. Shambhu Kewat[4]** , **State of M.P. v. Deepak[5] , State of M.P. v. Manish[6]** , **J. Ramesh Kamath v. Mohana Kurup[7]** ; **State of M.P. v. Rajveer Singh[8]** , **Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat[9] , State of M.P. v. Kalyan Singh[10] and State of M.P. v. Dhruv Gurjar[11]** . It was laid down as under: 15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this 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 - 1 [(2019) 5 SCC 688] 2 (2012) 10 SCC 303 3 2014 (6) SCC 466 4 (2014) 4 SCC 149 5 (2014) 10 SCC 285 6 (2015) 8 SCC 307 7 2016) 12 SCC 179 8 (2016) 12 SCC 471 9 (2017) 9 SCC 641 10 (2019) 4 SCC 268 11 (2019) 5 SCC 570] ``` CRL.MCNO.5027OF2023 ``` ``` 5 ``` 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 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. ``` CRL.MCNO.5027OF2023 ``` ``` 6 ``` 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. 9. In the case on hand, the offenses alleged include Section 307 of the IPC as well. In **Laxmi Narayanan** (supra), the Apex Court has reminded it would be open to this Court to examine whether incorporation of Section 307 of the IPC is there for the sake of it or whether the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which, if proven, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, this Court was required to go by the nature of the injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the ``` CRL.MCNO.5027OF2023 ``` ``` 7 ``` vital/delicate parts of the body, the nature of weapons used, etc. I have gone through the copy of the wound certificates of the injured, which is produced as Annexure A4. I find that the injured were seen by the Asst.Surgeon of the Govt.General Hospital on 27.06.2022. I have gone through the wound certificate of the victim. In the wound certificate, it is stated that the injuriy was sustained at the workplace and the injury sustained is a lacerated would on the arm and another lacerated wound on the side of chest.The injury noted by the doctor cannot be said to be grave warranting incorporation of a charge under Section 307 of the IPC. In that view of the matter, despite the incorporation of Section 307 of the IPC in the charge, this court would be well justified in quashing the proceedings recording the settlement **.** The quashing of proceedings on the basis of the settlement will not have any adverse impact on the society and it would only inure to bring about peace and secure the ends of justice as the accused and the victim are direct brothers. Even otherwise, persisting with the prosecution would be nothing but a waste of time as the prospects of conviction are bleak. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court will be well justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings. ``` CRL.MCNO.5027OF2023 ``` ``` 8 ``` Resultantly, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A1 Final Report in Crime No.682/2022 of Munambam Police Station and all further proceedings pending against the petitioner as S.C.No. 1331/2022 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Kochi are quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE** avs ``` CRL.MCNO.5027OF2023 ``` ``` 9 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5027/2023`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`** ``` AnnexureA1THECERTIFIEDCOPYOFTHECHARGESHEET SUBMITTEDBEFORETHEASSISTANTSESSIONS COURT,KOCHIINSC1331/2022 AnnexureA4TRUECOPYOFWOUNDCERTIFICATEDT.27.6.2022 ```