Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 1193
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. V. Jayakumar, J.
Gokul Chandran – Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor and ors. – Respondents
CRL.MC NO. 1708 OF 2025
Decided On : 25-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Arun Chand, Pramod S.K., Vinayak G Menon, Bharat Vijay P., Thareeq Anver K., K.Salma Jennath, Minu Vittorria Paulson, Archana P.P.
For the Respondent: Neethu S., Sri. Vipin Narayan, Sr. PP
The court can quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offenses of a private nature when the parties have settled their disputes, provided it does not adversely impact society.
Headnote:
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - Section 528 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 294(b), 506(1), 341, 323 r/w Section 34 - Quashing of criminal proceedings - The petitioner, accused No.2, sought to quash proceedings based on a settlement with the complainant, asserting that continuation of prosecution would be a waste of judicial resources. The court considered the nature of the allegations, the amicable relationship between the parties, and the lack of serious prior offenses against the petitioner. (Paras 1-8)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of proceedings - The court emphasized that quashing can occur for non-compoundable offenses of a private nature when the parties have settled their disputes, provided it does not adversely impact society. (Paras 7.1-7.5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was accused of threatening and assaulting the complainant's husband due to a misunderstanding regarding a police report of public alcohol consumption. The parties later settled their dispute amicably.
Findings of Court:
The court found that quashing the proceedings would promote peace and justice, given the circumstances and the nature of the allegations.
Issues: The main issues included whether the court should quash proceedings based on a settlement and the nature of the offenses involved.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the exercise of inherent powers to quash proceedings is justified when the offenses are private in nature and do not have a serious societal impact, especially when the parties have settled their disputes amicably.
Result: Petition allowed.
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 No.2 in Crime No.721 of 2023 of the Balaramapuram Police station, Thiruvananthapuram registered for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 506(1), 341, 323 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. The prosecution allegation, as borne out from the records, are as under:
The prosecution allegation is that, on 29.04.2023 around 09:30 p.m., owing to mistaken belief that the de-facto complainant's husband had reported their prior public consumption of alcohol to the police, the accused persons abused and threatened them in front of their house and returned in a motorcycle bearing registration No. KL 20 P 8663. Thereafter, at about 10:30p.m., the accused persons came back in the said motorcycle and abused in front of their house. While so, when the husband of the de-facto complainant came out from his house, the 1st accused abused him and kicked him on his left hip and he fell onto the floor. Thereafter, the 1st accused caught hold of his face and hit him on his right shoulder and when the de-facto complainant tried to prevent the same, the 2nd accused restrained her, and the 3rd accused caught hold of her hands and thus thereby the accused persons alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties have settled their dispute and do not wish to pursue the prosecution proceedings. He relies on the affidavit filed by the second respondent in support of his contention. 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 categor
