HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
PRANESH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC 6586 2023
Quashing - Criminal Misconduct - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482; Indian Penal Code - Sections 341, 294(b), 506; Arms Act, 1959 - Section 27 - Previous decisions defined the parameters under which non-compoundable offences can be quashed if they are private nature and settled amicably.
Fact of the Case:
The accused in a case filed under Section 482 of the Code sought to quash the criminal proceedings alleging wrongful restraint and threats involving a sword, asserting that the matter had been settled between the parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the nature of the allegations, the settlement between the parties, and previous rulings, concluding that the dispute was private in nature and warranted quashing of the proceedings.
Issues: Whether the court can quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences when the parties have settled their dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the principle that non-compoundable offences can be quashed under Section 482 of the Code if the dispute is private and has been amicably resolved, as established in prior Supreme Court rulings.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, quashing all further proceedings against the accused.
O R D E R
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (“the Code” for the sake of brevity).
2. The petitioners are the accused in C.C. No.
7659/2022 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court - III, Thiruvananthapuram, arising from Crime No. 587/2022 of Naruvamoodu Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram Rural. The above case is charge sheeted against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 341 , 294(b) and
506 r/w 34 of IPC .
3. The prosecution case is that on 21.08.2022 at around 2.40 p.m., the petitioners wrongfully restrained and horribly abused the defacto complainant and further threatened him using a sword. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act , 1959 is not attracted because the allegation is only to the effect that the accused threatened the victim using a sword. It is also submitted that the place of occurrence is not a notified area as per section 4 of the . I think there is some force in that contention.
4. 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 afÏdavit filed by the victim in support of his contention. The counsel appearing for the victim also submitted that the matter is settled and the victim has no objection in quashing the prosecution.
5. 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.
6. This Court has considered the submission of the petitioners, victim and the Public Prosecutor and has also gone through the records including the afÏdavit filed by the victim.
7. In State ofMadhya Pradesh v Laxmi Narayan 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 inGian 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 discussed the law in detail and the same is extracted hereunder:
“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:
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;
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;
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;
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 and / or the etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers u
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.