Allowed

Ninan John v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Jun 2023Crl.MC/4278/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge of the High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition to quash proceedings against the petitioner, a 1st accused in a conspiracy case involving assault. Relying on the existence of a settlement and the private nature of the dispute, the court held that proceeding with the case would be a waste of time as conviction prospects were bleak.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of Criminal Misc. Case No. 4278 of 2017 and all further proceedings pending against the petitioner in CC No. 157/2015.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 19TH JYAISHTA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 4278 OF 2017

¶3

AGAINST THE ORDER IN C.C NO.157/2015 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
PATHANAMTHITTA

¶4

PETITIONER/IST ACCUSED :-

¶5

NINAN JOHN, AGED 42 YEARS
S/O.JOHN THOMAS K., KULATHACKAL HOUSE, MARAMON P.O.,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689549.

¶6

BY ADVS.
SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE
SRI.BIJO THOMAS GEORGE

¶7

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT :-

¶8

1STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KOIPURAM POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶9

2BABU MATHEW
KULATHINKAL CHARUVIL, MARAMON P.O.,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689549.

¶10

BY ADVS.
SRI.P.HARI HARAN NAIR
SRI.P.HARI HARAN NAIR
SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN
SMT.C.B.SABEELA
SMT.K.VIDYA
SRI.VINODE V. LUKA
SRI.PRASHANTH M.P, PP

¶11

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶12

09.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

Crl.M.C No.4278 of 2017 2

¶14

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.

¶15

------------------------------------Crl.M.C No. 4278 of 2017

¶16

------------------------------------------Dated this the 9th day of June, 2023

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner herein is the 1st accused in Crime No.428/2015 Koipuram Police Station pending on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta. In the aforesaid case, he is accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 447, 120B, 109, 511, 323 and 34 of the IPC.

¶19

The prosecution allegation is that the 1st accused hatched a conspiracy with the rest of the accused with the intent to attack the de facto complainant and sent accused 2 to 4 to the house of the de facto complainant. However, the attempt was foiled since they were found hiding in the courtyard of the house.

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that by order dated 22.6.2017, this court had stayed the proceedings, and the matter was pending consideration before this Court. According to the

¶21

Crl.M.C No.4278 of 2017 3

¶22

learned counsel, the petitioner has settled all the disputes with the de facto complainant, consequent to which an affidavit has been sworn to by him recording the settlement. It is stated therein that there were civil disputes between the parties, and the same has been settled, and he has no further grievance.

¶23

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 Petitioner hitherto. It is further submitted that the statement of the party respondent has been recorded, and he has unequivocally expressed that he harbor no enduring grievances.

¶24

I have considered the submissions and have gone through the records.

¶25

In State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan,¹ , a three-judge bench of

¶26

the Hon’ble Supreme Court has summarised the law as laid down in Gian

¶27

1 [(2019) 5 SCC 688]

¶28

Crl.M.C No.4278 of 2017 4

¶29

Singh v. State of Punjab 2 , Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab 3 , State of Rajasthan v. Shambhu Kewat 4 , State of M.P. v. Deepak 5, State of M.P. v. Manish 6 , J. Ramesh Kamath v. Mohana Kurup 7 ; State of M.P. 8 9 v. Rajveer Singh , Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat , State of M.P. v. Kalyan Singh 10 and State of M.P. v. Dhruv Gurjar 11 . It was laid down as under:

¶30

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:

¶31

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;

¶32

2 (2012) 10 SCC 303 3 2014 (6) SCC 466

¶33

4 (2014) 4 SCC 149

¶34

5 (2014) 10 SCC 285

¶35

6 (2015) 8 SCC 307 7 2016) 12 SCC 179 8 (2016) 12 SCC 471 9 (2017) 9 SCC 641 10 (2019) 4 SCC 268 11 (2019) 5 SCC 570]

¶36

Crl.M.C No.4278 of 2017 5

¶37

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;

¶38

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;

¶39

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

¶40

Crl.M.C No.4278 of 2017 6

¶41

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;

¶42

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.

¶43

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 exist 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.

¶44

Crl.M.C No.4278 of 2017 7

¶45

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.

¶46

Resultantly, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A2 Final Report in Crime No.428/2015 of Koipuram Police Station and all further proceedings pending against the petitioner pending as CC No.157/2015 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta, are quashed.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE

¶49

sru

¶50

Crl.M.C No.4278 of 2017 8

¶51

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4278/2017

¶52

PETITIONER ANNEXURES :

¶53

`ANNEXURE A1-`	`CERTIFIED COPY OF` `CRIME 428/2015 OF`	`FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN` `KOIPURAM POLICE STATION.`
`ANNEXURE A2-`	`CERTIFIED COPY O` `NO.428/2015 OF K`	`F THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME` `OIPURAM POLICE STATION WHICH`
	`IS NOW PENDING` `JUDICIAL MAGISTRA` `C.C.157/2015.`	`BEFORE THE HON'BLE CHIEF` `TE COURT PATHANAMTHITTA AS`
`ANNEXURE A3-`	`CERTIFIED COPY OF` `CRIME 324/2015 OF`	`FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN` `KOIPURAM POLICE STATION.`
`ANNEXURE A4-`	`CERTIFIED COPY` `C.C.702/2015 OF` `MAGISTRATE COURT,`	`OF A FINAL REPORT IN` `THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUDICIAL` `PATHANAMTHITTA.`
`ANNEXURE A5-`	`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF` `THE ACCUSED IN C.`	`THE FINE RECEIPTS ISSUED TO` `C.702/2015.`
`Annexure A-6`	`AFFIDAVIT DATED` `RESPONDENT`	`02-06-2023 SWORN BY THE 2ND`

Ninan John v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ninan John 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

Joy Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Suresh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Biju P.R. Vs Bijo James

Afsal Vs Abdul Rahman

Livin Vs State of Kerala

Muneer Khan, Vs State of Kerala