Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 1137
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. V. Jayakumar, J.
Charles Michael Augustine – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor And Ors. – Respondents
CRL.MC NO. 1295 of 2025
Decided On : 25-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Vivek Venugopal
For the Respondent: Anoop Elias, T.A Mohamed Sageer, Neenu Vimalkumar, Sreelakshmi G., Sajeena Abdu T.K., Sri. Sanal P. Raj, Public Prosecutor
The court can quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences of a private nature based on amicable settlement, provided it does not adversely impact society.
Headnote:
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - Section 528 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 303(2) - Quashing of criminal proceedings - The petitioner, accused of theft, sought to quash proceedings based on an amicable settlement with the complainant. The court considered the nature of the offence, the relationship between parties, and the lack of serious impact on society. (Paras 1-8)
(B) Criminal Procedure - The court emphasized that powers under Section 482 of the Code can be exercised for non-compoundable offences of a private nature when parties have settled their disputes. Serious offences, however, should not be quashed based solely on compromise. (Paras 7.1-7.5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was accused of stealing a motorcycle worth Rs.2,40,000/- and claimed that the dispute was settled with the complainant, who supported the quashing of proceedings.
Findings of Court:
The court found that quashing the proceedings would not adversely impact society and would promote peace.
Issues: The main issues included whether the court should quash proceedings based on a settlement and the nature of the offence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the proceedings could be quashed under Section 528 of the BNSS due to the amicable settlement and the lack of serious societal impact.
Result: Petition allowed; proceedings quashed.
ORDER :
K. V. Jayakumar, J.
This petition is filed invoking the powers of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short, ‘ BNSS ’).
2. The petitioner herein is the accused in Crime No. 485 of 2024 of the Elamakkara Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita ( BNS ), 2023.
3. The prosecution allegation, as borne out from the records, is that on 11.10.2024, accused Nos. 1 and 2 committed theft of a Royal Enfield motor-cycle bearing Reg. No. KL-41/Q-0655 worth Rs.2,40,000/- of the defacto complainant which was parked on the road side near Grand Mall, Edapally.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire disputes are settled between the petitioner and respondent No.2, and do not wish to pursue the prosecution proceedings. He relies on the affidavit filed by the second respondent in support of his contention. The learned counsel argues that if the proceedings are terminated, with the recording of the amicable settlement, the parties can move forward in an atmosphere of peace and mutual respect.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, has expressed reservations about quashing the proceedings solely on the basis of the settlement. He argues that the facts and circumstances may not warrant the exercise of the court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS . However, it is fairly submitted that there have been no other crimes of serious nature registered against the petitioner to date. It is further submitted that the statement of the party respondent has been recorded, and he has unequivocally stated that he does not have any lasting grievances.
6. I have considered the submissions and have gone through the records.
7. In State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan , [[(2019)5 SCC 688]], a three-judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has summarized the law as laid down in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab , [[(2012)10 SCC 303]], Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab , [[2014(6) SCC 466]] and in subsequent cases. It was laid down as under:
15. 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:
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;
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;
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;
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
