High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeThe petition stands allowed; FIR No. 73/2023 an...

Vishnuprasad SP and Others v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:CRL.MC No. 1868 of 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date
2023-08-07
Court Decision / Holding
Resultantly, the petition is allowed. Annexure-A1 FIR in Crime No. 73/2023 of Sreekaryam Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners in CC No.153/2023 before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Thiruvananthapuram are quashed.
Final Disposition
The petition stands allowed; FIR No. 73/2023 and CC No. 153/2023 are quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Vishnuprasad SP
  • Karthik B
  • Shyjur B

Respondents

  • State of Kerala
  • Hashims

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • SRAVAN M.S.
  • • SRIKANTH THAMBAN

Counsels for Respondents

  • • SMT. NEEMA TV
  • • Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC (CRL.MC No.1868 of 2023) by three accused—Vishnuprasad SP, Karthik B, and Shyjur B—challenging the continuation of criminal proceedings in CC No.153/2023 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class I, Thiruvananthapuram, for offences under sections 294(b), 324 and 326 read with section 34 IPC. The incident occurred on 19 January 2023, when the petitioners allegedly attacked the de facto complainant along with about ten identifiable persons, resulting in injuries. The petition relies on a compromise reached between the parties and an affidavit from the de facto complainant stating no lasting grievances, seeking quashing of the proceedings on the ground that the dispute has been amicably settled and further prosecution would hinder peace and reconciliation. The Public Prosecutor expresses reservations about quashing solely on the basis of a settlement, though notes that no other crimes by the petitioners exist. The High Court surveys Supreme Court precedents—State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab; Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab—to articulate the governing principle: the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash non-compoundable offences may be exercised where the dispute is civil/private in nature, the entire dispute is settled, and the offences are not heinous or of grave societal impact. After weighing gravity of the injuries, lack of lasting grievance, and the parties’ amicable relationship, the Court holds that quashing would not harm public interests and would advance ends of justice; the petition is allowed and FIR 73/2023 and CC 153/2023 are quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973)Section 320 of CrPC (non-compoundable offences)Sections 294(b), 324, and 326 read with Section 34 IPCCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973Indian Penal Code (IPC)Section 307 IPC (mentioned for analytical purposes)Arms Act (mentioned)Prevention of Corruption Act (mentioned)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Ends of justice
  • Inherent powers of CrPC under Section 482
  • Quashing private/non-public interest offences where settlement is complete
  • Not to quash for heinous/serious offences
  • Harmonious reading of precedents (Gian Singh, Narinder Singh) with State of MP v. Laxmi Narayan

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners’ counsel submitted that the dispute among the parties has been amicably settled as evidenced by the affidavit of the de facto complainant. They contended that continuing criminal proceedings would undermine the peace and mutual respect achieved and would be an unnecessary waste of time and resources. Relying on the settlement and the lack of any lasting grievances, they urged the High Court to exercise its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR (Crime No. 73/2023) and the subsequent proceedings in CC 153/2023. They argued that the offences are non-heinous, private in nature, and the civil character of the disputes predominates, aligning with the principles laid down in the cited Supreme Court decisions that permit quashing in such circumstances. They emphasized no other serious crimes by the petitioners and the need to restore peace between the parties.

Contentions of Respondents

The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor and the complainant’s counsel, urged caution. While acknowledging the absence of other crimes by the petitioners, they argued that quashing solely on the basis of settlement should not be automatic, as the proceedings involve offences under IPC that affect public interest and society. They pointed to the need to assess the evidence, the nature of injuries, and whether the FIR’s inclusion of Section 307 IPC or the Arms Act is genuine or incidental. The Public Prosecutor emphasized that the court should evaluate the gravity of the offences and the potential impact on society before exercising extraordinary jurisdiction, even where a settlement exists, and cautioned against undermining the rule of law by prematurely terminating the prosecution.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan(2019) 5 SCC 688PositiveCited to establish the overarching principle that the power under Section 482 CrPC to quash non-compoundable offences may be exercised where disputes are civil/private and settled, provided the offences are not of a heinous nature or of major public impact.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab(2012) 10 SCC 303PositiveCited as part of the controlling jurisprudence underpinning the exercise of 482 CrPC in cases where there is a settled dispute and the offences are not serious public crimes.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab(2014) 6 SCC 466PositiveCited to reinforce the framework for evaluating whether to quash non-compoundable/private offences when a settlement exists, and to harmonize with the State of MP v. Laxmi Narayan rulings.

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 Vishnuprasad SP 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.

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V MONDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 16TH SRAVANA, 1945`** ``` CRL.MCNO.1868OF2023 CRIMENO.73/2023OFSREEKARYAMPOLICESTATION C.C.NO.153of2023ONTHEFILESOFTHEJUDICIALMAGISTRATE OFFIRSTCLASS-I,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ``` ``` 1VISHNUPRASADSP AGED25YEARS S/OPRASANNAN,LITTLEHUT,KIZHAKKUMBHAGOM KAZHAKOOTAMP.O,KAZHAKOOTAM - THIRUVANANTHAPURAMDISTRICT,PIN695582 2KARTHIKB AGED23YEARS S/OBIJU,TC53/1698-2KEERTHANAM NEMOMP.O,NEMOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAMDISTRICT, - PIN695020 3SHYJURB AGED23YEARS S/ORAJEEV,TC2/1883,KIZHAKKUMVARAM KULATHOORP.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAMDISTRICT, - PIN695583 BYADVS. SRAVANM.S. SRIKANTHTHAMBAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE :`** ``` 1STATEOFKERALA REPRESENTEDBYPUBLICPROSECUTOR, - HIGHCOURTOFKERALA,ERNAKULAM,PIN682031 2HASHIMS AGED24YEARS S/OSULFIKARM,TC35/779(1),ATTUVARAMBILVEEDU VALLAKKADAVUP.O,PUTHENPALAM,PETTA - THIRUVANANTHAPURAMDISTRICT,PIN695008 SMT.NEEMATV,SR.PP THISCRIMINALMISC.CASEHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON 07.08.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYPASSEDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` ``` CRL.MCNO.1868OF2023 ``` ``` 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 petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C. - No.153 of 2023 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class I, Thiruvananthapuram. In the said case, they are the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 324 and 326 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC. 3. The prosecution allegation, as borne out from the records, are as under: On 19.01.2023 at about 10.30 p.m., the accused, along with ten identifiable persons, in furtherance of their common intention, attacked the de facto complainant causing injuries. 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 party ``` CRL.MCNO.1868OF2023 ``` ``` 3 ``` 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 mutual respect. 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 > 1 [(2019) 5 SCC 688] ``` CRL.MCNO.1868OF2023 ``` ``` 4 ``` ## 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 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 > 2 (2012) 10 SCC 303 > 3 2014 (6) SCC 466 ``` CRL.MCNO.1868OF2023 ``` ``` 5 ``` 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. 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; ``` CRL.MCNO.1868OF2023 ``` ``` 6 ``` 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 offence, the severity of injuries inflicted, 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 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 ``` CRL.MCNO.1868OF2023 ``` ``` 7 ``` that this Court would be well justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings Resultantly, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A1 FIR in Crime No.73/2023 of Sreekaryam Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners pending as C.C. No.153/2023 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Thiruvananthapuram, are quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V. JUDGE** NS ``` CRL.MCNO.1868OF2023 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1868/2023`** ``` PETITIONERANNEXURES: ``` |`Annexure `|`A1`|`THE ORIGINAL COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION`| |---|---|---| |||`REPORT IN CRIME NO.73/ 2023 OF SREEKARYAM`| |||`POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.`| |`Annexure `|`A2`|`THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE SECOND`| |||`RESPONDENT/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT STATING`| |||`SETTLEMENT OF ALL THE DISPUTES WITH THE`| |||`PETITIONERS HEREIN.`| |`Annexure `|`A3`|`THE CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CC`| |||`NO.153/2023 ON THE FILES OF HON'BLE JUDICIAL`| |||`FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-1,`| |||`THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 27.02.2023`|