Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 9TH JYAISHTA, 1945 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTSC 538/2021 OF ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, THALASSERY PETITIONER/S: 1 ANEESH N.B AGED 30 YEARS S/O BABU, NELLOLICHAL HOUSE, PALUKACHI, KOTTIYOOR, KELAKOM, KANNUR,KERALA,, PIN - 670674 2 DEEPAK VM AGED 30 YEARS DEEPAK VM, S/O MOHANAN,VADAKKETHIL HOUSE , PAMPARAPPAN ,KOTTIYOOR AMSOM, KELAKOM, KANNUR,KERALA, PIN - 670674 3 ABIN BHARATHAN AGED 30 YEARS S/O BHARATHAN ANAKKAMPURATH HOUSE,PAMPARAPPAN, KOTTIYOOR, KELAKOM ,KANNUR , KERALA ,, PIN - 670674 4 ABHIJITH SUNNY AGED 27 YEARS S/O SUNNY, VALLAMKOTTIL HOUSE, PAMPARAPPAN, KOTTIYOOR, KELAKOM , KANNUR ,KERALA, PIN - 670674 5 RAJEESH S AGED 29 YEARS S/O SIVAN, ,PLAVILAPUTHENVEETIL HOUSE, CHAPPAMALA, KOTTIYOOR, KELAKOM .KANNUR , KERALA, PIN - 670674 BY ADV M.ANUROOP RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM-, PIN - 682031 2 JOYAL JOB S/O JOB, NJENDIKAL HOUSE, PALUKACHI, KOTTIYOOR, KELAKOM, KANNUR,KERALA, PIN - 670674 3 ASHWIN SANTHOSH S/O SANTHOSH, AGED 24 YEARS NELICHALIL, PALUKACHI, KOTTIYOOR, KELAKOM, KANNUR,KERALA, PIN - 670674 4 VISHNU PRASAD S/O PRASAD, AGED 25 YEARS MANKAKKAATT VALAPPIL HOUSE, KOTTIYOOR, KELAKOM, KANNUR,KERALA, PIN - 670674 5 AMAL PC S/O BENNI , AGED 27 YEARS PUTHAN PURAYIL HOUSE, KOTTIYOOR, KELAKOM, KANNUR,KERALA, PIN - 670674 SRI TR RENJITH SR PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
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 Nos. 1 and 5 in
S.C.No.538 of 2021 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Court, Thalasserry. In the said case, they face indictment for having committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 506(ii), 308, 326 r/w Section 149 of the IPC.
3. The prosecution allegation, as borne out from the records, are
as under: On 24.12.2020 at about 7 p.m., the petitioners, in furtherance of their common intention, wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and his friends, attacked them with an iron rod, causing 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 Annexures-A3 to A6 affidavits filed by respondents 2 to 5 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.
5. When the matter had come up for admission, this court had
directed the investigating officer concerned to record the statements of the defacto complainant/injured/victims and report as to whether the assertion in the petition and the affidavits 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 petitioners are persons 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. 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 respondents has been recorded, and they have unequivocally expressed that they harbor no enduring grievances. It is submitted that the 1st petitioner is involved in two other crimes registered in 2017 and 2021 involving offence under Section 323 of the IPC.
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 Punjab2, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab3, State of Rajasthan v. Shambhu Kewat4, State of M.P. v. Deepak5, State of M.P. v. Manish6, J. Ramesh Kamath v. Mohana Kurup7; State of M.P. v. Rajveer Singh8, Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat9, State of M.P. v. Kalyan Singh10 and State of M.P. v. Dhruv Gurjar11. 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 [(2019) 5 SCC 688]
(2012) 10 SCC 303 2014 (6) SCC 466
(2014) 4 SCC 149
(2014) 10 SCC 285
(2015) 8 SCC 307 2016) 12 SCC 179
(2016) 12 SCC 471
(2017) 9 SCC 641
(2019) 4 SCC 268
(2019) 5 SCC 570]
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. 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. Having carefully analyzed the nature of the allegations, the
gravity of the offense, the severity of injuries inflicted, antecedents of the petitioners, and the amicable relationship that now exists between the parties, I am of the considered opinion that 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. Though some antecedents are reported against one of the accused, the offences are minor in nature. 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. Resultantly, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A2 Final Report in Crime No. 378/2020 of Kelakom Police Station and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners as S.C.No.538/2021 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Thalasserry, are quashed. Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE avs APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2875/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.378/2020 OF KELAKOM POLICE STATION. Annexure A2 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN AS SC NO.538/2021 ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY IN CRIME NO. 378/2020 OF KELAKOM POLICE STATION. Annexure A3 THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVITS DATED ON 20-03-2023 SWORN BY THE RESPONDENT NO: 2 Annexure A4 THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVITS DATED ON 20-03-2023 SWORN BY THE RESPONDENT NO: 3 Annexure A5 THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVITS DATED ON 20-03-2023 SWORN BY THE RESPONDENT NO: 4 Annexure A6 THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVITS DATED ON 20-03-2023 SWORN BY THE RESPONDENT NO: 5