Dismissed

Abraham v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Jul 2023Crl.MC/1457/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC for offences including Section 307 IPC. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that heinous offences like attempted murder cannot be quashed based on settlement alone due to their impact on society.

What did the court decide?

Petition to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC was dismissed in the interest of justice.

Abraham Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV
WEDNESDAY,THE12THDAYOFJULY2023/21STASHADHA,1945

¶3

CRL.MC NO. 1457 OF 2021

¶4

AGAINSTTHEORDER/JUDGMENTINSC73/2019OFADDITIONAL
DISTRICT&SESSIONSCOURT,MUVATTUPUZHA

¶5

PETITIONER/S:

¶6

ABRAHAM
AGED67YEARS
S/O.MATHAI,
PADINJAREMALAYILHOUSE,KALAMBOORP.O.,
PIRAVOMVILLAGE,PIN-686664.

¶7

BYADVS.
SRI.JOBINPAUL
ARUNFRANCIS
DEENAJOSEPH(K/000193/2016)
HARIKRISHNANK.(K/2273/2022)

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1STATEOFKERALA
REPRESENTEDBYSTATIONHOUSEOFFICER,
PIRAVOMPOLICESTATION,ERNAKULAM,
REPRESENTEDBYTHEPUBLICPROSECUTOR,
HIGHCOURTOFKERALA,PIN-682031.
2RAJU.M.S.
AGED50YEARS
S/O.SIMON,
MULLAMMADAYIL(NECHIKKATTU)HOUSE,
PONGUMMALABHAGAM,KALAMBOORP.O.,
PIRAVOMVILLAGE,ERNAKULAM,PIN-686664.
BYADVKAPILKRISHNA

¶10

SRI.MPPRASHANTH,PP

¶11

THISCRIMINALMISC.CASEHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION
ON12.07.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYPASSEDTHE
FOLLOWING:

¶12

¶13

CRL.MCNO.1457OF2021

¶14

ORDER

¶15

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).

¶16

The petitioner herein is the accused in S.C. No. 73 of 2019 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court, Muvattupuzha. In the said case, he is accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 307, 324, and 506(ii) of the IPC.

¶17

The crux of the prosecution allegation is that on 10.02.2018, at about 12.45 p.m., the petitioner herein, owing to the previous enmity, inflicted multiple stab injuries on the lower abdomen, back, face and on various other parts of the informant and thereby committed the offence.

¶18

Sri. Arun Francis, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the parties have managed to settle their entire disputes, and they are living in peace and harmony. Reliance is placed on Annexure-A4 affidavit sworn to by the 2nd respondent to substantiate his contention.

¶19

The learned public prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer. The learned Public Prosecutor would point out that the offenses alleged would involve Section 307 of the IPC and rely on the law laid down by the

¶20

¶21

CRL.MCNO.1457OF2021

¶22

Apex Court in State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan,¹ it is submitted that grave offenses such as one under Section 307 cannot fittingly be quashed by invoking the powers u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. on the basis of a purported settlement. Placing reliance on the wound certificate of the injured, it is submitted that multiple injuries were inflicted on vital parts of the body.

¶23

I have considered the submissions and have gone through the

¶24

records.

¶25

In Laxmi Narayan (supra), 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 ,

¶26

State of M.P. v. Manish⁶ , J. Ramesh Kamath v. Mohana Kurup⁷ ;

¶27

State of M.P. v. Rajveer Singh⁸ , Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of

¶28

Gujarat⁹ , State of M.P. v. Kalyan Singh¹⁰ and State of M.P. v. Dhruv

¶29

Gurjar¹¹ . It was laid down as under:

¶30

1 [(2019) 5 SCC 688]

¶31

2 (2012) 10 SCC 303

¶32

3 2014 (6) SCC 466

¶33

4 (2014) 4 SCC 149

¶34

5 (2014) 10 SCC 285

¶35

6 (2015) 8 SCC 307

¶36

7 2016) 12 SCC 179

¶37

8 (2016) 12 SCC 471

¶38

9 (2017) 9 SCC 641

¶39

10 (2019) 4 SCC 268

¶40

11 (2019) 5 SCC 570]

¶41

CRL.MCNO.1457OF2021

¶42

¶43

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:

¶44

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;

¶45

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;

¶46

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;

¶47

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

¶48

CRL.MCNO.1457OF2021

¶49

¶50

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;

¶51

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.

¶52

¶53

CRL.MCNO.1457OF2021

¶54

I find from the records that the accused had inflicted multiple stab injuries on the vital parts of the body of the informant. The Apex Court has clearly held in Laxmi Narayan (supra) that offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act, etc., would fall in the category of heinous and serious offenses and therefore are to be treated as crimes against society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offense under Section 307 IPC, 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. After perusing the wound certificate, the nature of the injury, and its severity, I am not inclined to quash the proceedings on the basis of a purported settlement.

¶55

This petition is dismissed.

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE

¶58

avs

¶59

¶60

CRL.MCNO.1457OF2021

¶61

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1457/2021

¶62

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶63

AnnexureA5TRUECOPYOFTHEMEDICALCERTIFICATEDATED
13.02.2023
ANNEXUREA1THETRUECOPYOFTHEFISLODGEDINCRIME
NO.181/2018OFPIRAVOMPOLICESTATION,
ERNAKULAM.
ANNEXUREA2THECERTIFIEDCOPYOFTHEFIRINCRIME181/2018
OFPIRAVOMPOLICESTATION.
ANNEXUREA3THETRUECOPYOFFINALREPORTINCRIME
NO.181/2018OFPIRAVOMPOLICESTATION(NUMBERED
ASSC73/2018OFADDL.SESSIONSCOURT,
MUVATTUPUZHA).
ANNEXUREA4THEAFFIDAVITSWORNBYTHE2NDRESPONDENTDATED
08.903.2021.

Abraham v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abraham 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

Anas .S Vs the State of Kerala

Radhakrishnan Vs Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Sunny, Vs State of Kerala

Preetham K @ Pramod Vs State of Kerala

Appunni @ Appu, Vs State of Kerala

Shaijan Joseph Vs State of Kerala