Allowed

Padmaja Nair v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Nov 2023Crl.MC/1228/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a Criminal Miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash prosecution proceedings under Sections 451 and 323 IPC. The dispute was found to be private in nature and the court accepted the settlement between the petitioner (accused) and the victim, despite the Public Prosecutor's initial reservations.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings against the petitioner in CC No. 1950/2021 arising from Crime No. 75/2020 of Peroorkkada Police Station are quashed.

Padmaja Nair Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

CRL.MC NO. 1228 OF 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1945

¶7

CRL.MC NO. 1228 OF 2022

¶8

CRIME NO.75/2020 OF Peroorkada Police Station,

¶9

Thiruvananthapuram

¶10

PETITIONER/S:

¶11

PADMAJA NAIR AGED 73 YEARS PADMAJA NAIR, DO R. RATNAMMA THANKACHI , AGED 73, RESIDING AT SURYA GARDENS, NEAR PIPPINMOODU PARK, T.C13 -199, H NO.6.LAKSHMIPRIYA HOUSE, SASTHAMANGALAM, PEROORKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY, KERALA. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695010

¶12

BY ADVS. . P.SIVARAJ R.SUDARSANA DEVI M.M.LAIJU NISSA M.MEHAR FARSANA

¶13

RESPONDENT/S:

¶14

1 STATE OF KERALA HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

¶15

2 S.NARAYANAN NAIR, AGED 87 YEARS S.NARAYANAN NAIR, AGED 87 YEARS, SON FO SANKARAPPILLA, H.N.28REVATHY, SURYA GARDENS, PIPPINMOODU, SASTHAMANGALAM, PEROORKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695010, KERALA. S.NARAYANAN NAIR, AGED 87 YEARS, SON OF SANKARAPPILLA, H.N.28REVATHY,

¶16

CRL.MC NO. 1228 OF 2022 2

¶17

SURYA GARDENS, PIPPINMOODU, SASTHAMANGALAM, PEROORKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695010, KERALA. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695562

¶18

3 SURENDRAN NAIR AGED 55 YEARS H.N.28REVATHY, SURYA GARDENS, PIPPINMOODU, SAS, SOUMYA BHAVAN, NEAR ERAPERAYAM AYIRAVALLY TEMPLE, PASLODE VILLAGE, ERAPERAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695562THAMANGALAM, PEROORKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695010, KERALA. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695562 BY ADVS. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR N.RADHAKRISHNAN

¶19

OTHER PRESENT:

¶20

SRI RENJITH TR, PP

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

¶23

CRL.MC NO. 1228 OF 2022

¶24

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J

¶25

Crl.M.C. No.1228 of 2022

¶26

Dated this the 8^th day of November, 2023

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for the sake of brevity).

¶29

The petitioner is the accused in CC No. 1950/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-XI, Thiruvananthapuram arising from Crime No. 75/2020 of Peroorkkada Police Station. The above case is chargesheeted alleging offences punishable under Secs. 451 & 323 IPC.

¶30

The prosecution case is that the accused tresspassed into the house of the defacto complainant and assaulted the 3^rd respondent. It is submitted that the defacto complainant is no more and the 3^rd respondent already filed an affidavit stating that he has no objection in quashing the proceedings.

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶32

CRL.MC NO. 1228 OF 2022 4

¶33

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.

¶34

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.

¶35

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.

¶36

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

¶37

CRL.MC NO. 1228 OF 2022 5

¶38

Singh v. State of Punjab and another (2012 (10) SCC 303)

¶39

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:

¶40

“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:

¶41

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;

¶42

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;

¶43

iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences

¶44

CRL.MC NO. 1228 OF 2022 6

¶45

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;

¶46

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

¶47

CRL.MC NO. 1228 OF 2022

¶48

¶49

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 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 noncompoundable 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.”

¶50

8. Keeping in mind the above dictum laid down by the

¶51

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

¶52

¶53

CRL.MC NO. 1228 OF 2022

¶54

settlement can be accepted.

¶55

Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous case is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner in CC No. 1950/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-XI, Thiruvananthapuram arising from Crime No. 75/2020 of Peroorkkada Police Station are quashed.

¶56

sd/-

¶57

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶58

SKS

¶59

CRL.MC NO. 1228 OF 2022

¶60

¶61

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1228/2022

¶62

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶63

Annexure1 TRUE COPY OF FIR DATED 13.1.2020 IN CRIME NO.75 OF 2020 Annexure2 TRUE COPY OF FIS DATED 13.1.2020 IN CRIME NO. 75 OF 2020 Annexure3 CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT DATED 10.08.21 IN CRIME NO. 75 OF 2020 Annexure4 TRUE COPY OF FIR DATED 8.1.2020 IN CRIME NO. 40 OF 2020 Annexure5 TRUE COPY OF FIS DATED 8.1.2020 IN CRIME NO.40 OF 2020

Padmaja Nair v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padmaja Nair v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajimon P. Vs Station House Officer

Abdul Salim Vs State of Kerala

Salim Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

K.Rajesh Vs State of Kerala

John K.V. Vs K.Babu

Hashim Vs State of Kerala