Yadhu Krishnan, Gopi Krishnan and Terrance v. State of Kerala and Muraleedharan Unnithan

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 14TH BHADRA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 6221 OF 2023 ``` ``` CC 1396/2014 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ADOOR ``` ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1,3,4:`** - `1 YADHU KRISHNAN AGED 30 YEARS` - `S/O PRASHOBHAN PADINJAREVELI VEEDU, CHERUVARANAM, CHERUVARANAM PO, CHERTHALA, PIN - 688555` - `2 GOPI KRISHNAN AGED 30 YEARS` - `SOUPARNIKAYIL VADAKKOTTU PONNAMMATH HOUSE, DECENT MUKKU, MUKHATHALA MURI, THRIKKOVIL VATTOM VILLAGE, THRIKKOVIL VATTOM TALUK, KOLLAM, PIN - 691577` - `3 TERRANCE AGED 30 YEARS, S/O ROBERT, MELEDATHU VEEDU, BHARATHAN NAGAR, CHELAVOOR P.O, CHELAVOOR TALUK, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673571` - `BY ADVS.C.B.SREEKUMAR SAGITH KUMAR V. SHEFEEK A.` ## **`RESPONDENTS, STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:`** - `1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031` - `2 MURALEEDHARAN UNNITHAN AGED 63 YEARS S/O KUNJUNITHAN, PUNTHALA VEETIL, MANAKKALA, KOTTANALLOOR MURI, ERATHU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 691551` ``` VIPIN NARAYAN , PP ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ``` ``` ON 05.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` Crl.M.C.No.6221/2023 **2** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.6221 of 2023 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 05[th] day of September, 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. Petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.1369/2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor, which arises from Crime No.520/2014 of Adoor Police Station. The case is charge-sheeted against the petitioners and another, alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 294(b), 341 and 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused 4 in number, in furtherance of their common object, formed an unlawful assembly, and with the knowledge that they are the members of unlawful assembly, unlawfully entered the shop run by the defacto complainant and uttered obscene words against the defacto complainant and wrongfully restrained him and assaulted him by beating and by kicking him. Crl.M.C.No.6221/2023 **3** 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 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 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** Crl.M.C.No.6221/2023 **4** **(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: “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 Crl.M.C.No.6221/2023 **5** 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 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 Crl.M.C.No.6221/2023 **6** 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 and the settlement can be accepted. Crl.M.C.No.6221/2023 **7** Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners alone in C.C.No.1369/2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor, which arises from Crime No.520/2014 of Adoor Police Station, are quashed. sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** JV Crl.M.C.No.6221/2023 **8** ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6221/2023`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR Annexure A2THE CERTIFIED COPY FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 520 /2014 OF THE ADOOR POLICE STATION IN PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT Annexure 3TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT/ 2ND RESPONDENT ```