Allowed

Baiju v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Sept 2023Crl.MC/1672/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala exercised its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings alleging IPC offences. Relying on settled Supreme Court law, the court held that the dispute was private in nature, resolved by the parties, and non-impactful on society, thus allowing the quashing.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings consequent to Crime No.84/2020 of Parippally Police Station are quashed.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 29TH BHADRA, 1945

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 1672 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.84/2020 OF PARIPPALLY POLICE STATION

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶8

1 BAIJU, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O SIVADASAN, VELAMANOOR, PARIPPALLY, KOLLAM-691 574.

¶9

2 SUDHAN,AGED 46 YEARS, S/O THAKKAYAN NADAR, VELAMANOOR, PARIPPALLY, KOLLAM-691 574.

¶10

BY ADV M.R.SARIN

¶11

RESPONDENTS/STATE, DEFACTO COMPLAINANTS:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PIN-682 031.

¶13

2 RAJAN, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O DIVAKARAN, RAJ BHAVAN, VELAMANUR, KALLUVATHUKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK-691 001.

BY ADV RANJITH E N

OTHER PRESENT:

SANGEETHA RAJ PP

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

CRL.MC No.1672 of 2020

¶19

¶20

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶21

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CRL.MC No.1672 of 2020

¶22

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20^th day of September, 2023

¶23

ORDER

¶24

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

¶25

The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.84/2020 of Parippally Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 506, 341, 323 r/w Section 34 IPC.

¶26

The prosecution case is that the accused wrongfully confined the victim and assaulted him. It is also stated that the accused used filthy language.

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

CRL.MC No.1672 of 2020

¶30

submitted that the matter is settled and the victim has no objection in quashing the prosecution.

¶31

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.

¶32

This Court has considered the submission of the petitioners, victim and the Public Prosecutor and has also gone through the records including the affidavit filed by the victim.

¶33

In State of Madhya Pradesh v Laxmi Narayan

¶34

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 (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

¶35

CRL.MC No.1672 of 2020

¶36

¶37

discussed the law in detail and the same is extracted hereunder:

¶38

“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:

¶39

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;

¶40

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;

¶41

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 basis of compromise between the victim and the offender;

¶42

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

¶43

CRL.MC No.1672 of 2020

¶44

¶45

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 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;

¶46

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.”

¶47

Keeping in mind the above dictum laid down by the

¶48

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.

¶49

Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous case is allowed.

¶50

CRL.MC No.1672 of 2020

¶51

¶52

All further proceedings consequent to Crime No.84/2020 of Parippally Police Station are quashed.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶55

bng

¶56

CRL.MC No.1672 of 2020

¶57

¶58

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1672/2020

¶59

PETITIONERS ANNEXURES

¶60

ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME 84/2020 OF PARIPPALLY POLICE STATION KOLLAM CITY ANNEXURE A2 AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA

Baiju v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baiju 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

Zakeer Hussain Vs State of Kerala

Rejimon, Vs State of Kerala

Sanoop Vs State of Kerala

Valsala Zacharias Vs State of Kerala

Rohit Krishna Vs State of Kerala

Sethu Korath Vs State of Kerala