Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 31ST JYAISHTA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 4527 OF 2023 AGAINST THE ORDER IN S.C.NO.969/2020 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, ATTINGAL
PETITIONER/9TH ACCUSED :- SAJIN AGED 22 YEARS S/O SALIM, KOONAN VILA VEED, NEAR KOCHUPALLI, VAKKOM VILLAGE, VAKKOM DESOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695308 BY ADV P.ANOOP (MULAVANA) RESPONDENTS/STATE/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT :- 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 68203 2 PRABHUDEV S/O MANI, AGED 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT SINDHU BAVAN, PULIVILAKOM, VAKKOM, VAKKOM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695308 SRI. VIPIN NARAYAN, SR. PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.06.2023, 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 petitioner herein is the 9th accused in S.C.No.969 of 2020 on
the files of the Assistant Sessions Court, Attingal. In the said case, he is accused of committing offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 323 and 308 r/w Section 149 of the IPC.
3. The prosecution allegation, as borne out from the records, are as
under: On 13.03.2015 at 08.15 pm, the petitioner herein, along with the rest of the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in the prosecution of their common object, wrongfully restrained the 2nd respondent and thereafter assaulted him, causing injuries.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that
the accused Nos. 1 to 3, 7, 8, 10, and 11 had approached this Court and by Annexure- A3 order dated 29.11.2016, in Crl.M.C.No. 4987/2016, the entire proceedings had been quashed. It is further submitted that the de facto complainant has filed Annexure-2 affidavit stating that he has no subsisting grievance.
5. When the matter had come up for admission, this court had
directed the investigating officer concerned to record the statement of the defacto 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 expressed reservations about quashing the proceedings based solely on 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 petitioner to date. It is further submitted that the statements of the party respondent have been recorded, and he has unequivocally stated that he has no lasting grievances.
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 of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;
[(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]
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 offence, the severity of injuries inflicted, the antecedents of the petitioner, 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. Furthermore, persisting with the prosecution would be nothing but a waste of time, as the prospects of conviction are bleak. Having considered 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. Resultantly, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-1 Final Report in Crime No.289/2015 of Kadakkavur Police Station and all further proceedings pending against the petitioner as S.C.No.969/2020 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Attingal, are quashed. Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE SMA APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4527/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES :- Annexure 1 THE TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN S.C NO.
AT ATTINGAL ARISING FROM CRIME NO. 289/2015 OF KADAKKAVUR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT Annexure2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Annexure 3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL MC Annexure 4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN BA 6062/2015 DATED 15-10-2015