Allowed

Shibinraj v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Jun 2023Crl.MC/616/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners seeking quashing of criminal proceedings for assault under Sections 323 and 324 IPC. Court allowed petition, quashing proceedings based on amicable settlement, lack of serious societal impact, and settlement affidavits submitted by respondents.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings as C.C.No.1468/2015 ordered to be quashed.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV
TUESDAY,THE13THDAYOFJUNE2023/23RDJYAISHTA,1945
CRL.MCNO.616OF2023

¶3

AGAINSTCCNO.1468/2015OFJUDICIALMAGISTRATEOFFIRSTCLASS
-I,TRIVANDRUM

¶4

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED1TO3&5:

¶5

1SHIBINRAJ
AGED32YEARS
S/ORAJU,RASMINIVAS,MEPPAYUR,
KOYILANDY,KOZHIKODE,PIN-673524

¶6

2VISHNU
AGED31YEARS
S/OSAJIE.S.,KOOTHODIYILVEEDU,ELACKAD,
KADAPLAMATTOM,KOTTAYAM,PIN-686587

¶7

3JITHESHMOHAN
AGED32YEARS
S/OK.V.MOHANAN,KUNDORAHOUSE,
ANNURP.O.,PAYYANUR,KANNUR,PIN-670307

¶8

4 NITHIN KANNANCHERY AGED 30 YEARS S/O NARAYANAN, KANNANCHERY HOUSE, KADAPPADY, PALLIKKAL, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 673638

¶9

BYADVS.
K.SUDHINKUMAR
P.MOHANDAS(ERNAKULAM)

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE, COMPLAINANT & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT &

¶11

INJURED :

¶12

1STATEOFKERALA,
REPRESENTEDBYTHEPUBLICPROSECUTOR,
HIGHCOURTOFKERALA,ERNAKULAM,
KOCHI,PIN-682031

¶13

¶14

CRL.MCNO.616OF2023

¶15

2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE SREEKARYAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695017

¶16

3 GOPIKRISHNAN S/O GOPAKUMAR KRISHNA, KULANGARAKONAM, NARUVAMOODU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695528

¶17

4 AKHILESH RAJ S/O RAJAN NAIR M.C. SURABHI, KOLAZHY, THRISSUR, PIN - 680010

¶18

SRIT.R.RENJITH,SR.PP

¶19

THISCRIMINALMISC.CASEHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON
13.06.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYPASSEDTHEFOLLOWING:

¶20

CRL.MCNO.616OF2023

¶21

¶22

ORDER

¶23

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.

¶24

The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 in CC.No.1468 of 2015 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Thiruvananthapuram. In the said case, they are accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 r/w Section 34 of the IPC.

¶25

The prosecution allegation, as borne out from the records, are as

¶26

under:

¶27

On 24.02.2012 at 11.30 p.m., the petitioners, in furtherance of their common intention, attacked the de facto complainant and others with an iron rod, causing injuries.

¶28

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the parties have settled their disputes and they are not desirous of pursuing the prosecution proceedings. Reliance is placed on Annexures - III and IV affidavits filed by respondents 3 and 4 to substantiate his contention. According to the learned counsel, if the proceedings are terminated, recording the amicable settlement, the parties can embark upon their future paths in an atmosphere of

¶29

¶30

CRL.MCNO.616OF2023

¶31

tranquility and mutual respect.

¶32

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 affidavits 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 petitioners are persons with criminal antecedents and whether there is any other impediment in terminating the criminal proceedings.

¶33

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 petitioners to date. It is further submitted that the statements of the party respondents have been recorded, and they have unequivocally stated that they do not have any lasting grievances.

¶34

I have considered the submissions and have gone through the

¶35

records.

¶36

¶37

CRL.MCNO.616OF2023

¶38

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.

¶39

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

¶40

Singh¹⁰ and State of M.P. v. Dhruv Gurjar¹¹ . It was laid down as under:

¶41

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:

¶42

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;

¶43

15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences

¶44

1 [(2019) 5 SCC 688]

¶45

2 (2012) 10 SCC 303

¶46

3 2014 (6) SCC 466

¶47

4 (2014) 4 SCC 149

¶48

5 (2014) 10 SCC 285

¶49

6 (2015) 8 SCC 307

¶50

7 2016) 12 SCC 179

¶51

8 (2016) 12 SCC 471

¶52

9 (2017) 9 SCC 641

¶53

10 (2019) 4 SCC 268

¶54

11 (2019) 5 SCC 570]

¶55

CRL.MCNO.616OF2023

¶56

¶57

like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;

¶58

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;

¶59

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]

¶60

CRL.MCNO.616OF2023

¶61

¶62

should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;

¶63

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.

¶64

Having carefully analyzed the nature of the allegations, the gravity of the offence, the severity of injuries inflicted, the antecedents of the petitioners, 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.

¶65

Resultantly, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure- II Final Report in

¶66

CRL.MCNO.616OF2023

¶67

¶68

Crime No.261/2012 of Sreekaryam Police Station and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners as C.C.No.1468/2015 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Thiruvananthapuram, are quashed.

¶69

Sd/-

¶70

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶71

¶72

CRL.MCNO.616OF2023

¶73

¶74

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 616/2023

¶75

PETITIONERANNEXURES:

¶76

Annexure-ITRUECOPYOFTHEFIRINCRIMENO.261/2012
DATED09.03.2012
Annexure-IITRUECOPYOFTHEFINALREPORTDATED25.03.2012
INC.C.NO.1468/2015
Annexure-IIITRUECOPYOFTHEAFFIDAVITOFTHE3RD
RESPONDENTDATED17.01.2023
Annexure-IVTRUECOPYOFTHEAFFIDAVITOFTHE4TH
RESPONDENTDATED17.01.2023

Shibinraj v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shibinraj 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

Gavin. M.I Vs State of Kerala

Anas Vs State of Kerala

Bhushar Jamhar Vs State of Kerala

Naisil Leslie Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs Sreebabu

State of Kerala Rep. by the Public Prosecutor. High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam. Vs Shince Babu