High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2019-11-18Criminal Miscellaneous Cases stand finally disp...

Abhilash @ Renjith (4th accused) v. State of Kerala & Santosh @ Unni and Raji (connected to Crime No.686/2009) — Crl.MC.No.7785/2019(C) & Crl.MC.No.7789/2019(C)

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No.7785/2019(C) & Crl.MC.No.7789/2019(C)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Alexander Thomas
Judgment Date: 2019-11-18
Court Decision / Holding: The two petitions are disposed of by quashing all further proceedings in LP 94/2014 (Kayamkulam JFCM) and the impugned Anx.A1 final report in SC 558/2011 (Mavelikkara ASJ), to the extent they relate to accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4. The court directs production of certified copies to the concerned Investigating Officer and court, and records that the matter stands disposed in the circumstances described, with the Office of the Advocate General to transmit copies.
Final Disposition: Criminal Miscellaneous Cases stand finally disposed of; quashing of further proceedings as described above.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Abhilash @ Renjith
Suraj
Sunil Kumar

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Santosh @ Unni
Raji W/o Santosh @ Unni

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Hyma S.

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. Lisha M.G.

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court decision, delivered by Justice Alexander Thomas on 18 November 2019, deals with two Criminal Miscellaneous Cases arising from Crime No.686/2009 of Kayamkulam Police Station, in which the accused sought quashing of proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. despite non‑compoundable offences. The petitioners—Abhilash @ Renjith (Crl.MC 7785/2019) and Suraj and Sunil Kumar (Crl.MC 7789/2019)—had been arrayed as accused in the original FIR and later separated for trial. The court notes that the defacto complainant has settled disputes with the accused in the interlinked proceedings and that continuing prosecution would not serve any purpose, citing the settled positions in Gian Singh v State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v State of Punjab, emphasizing the settled disputes as a ground to exercise jurisdiction under 482 Cr.P.C. The court observes the status of pending proceedings: S.C. No.94/2018 against accused 1 & 3 and L.P. No.94/2014 against accused 4, and issues directions to quash these proceedings to the extent they relate to the petitioners and to quash the impugned final report in S.C.No.558/2011. The order ultimately disposes of the petitions, requiring certified copies for further action and directing information to the Investigating Officer and concerned courts. The ruling underscores the principle that settlement can justify quashing even in non‑compoundable offence cases when continued prosecution serves no purpose and the parties have resolved their disputes.

Provisions of Law Cited

Sec. 143 IPCSec. 147 IPCSec. 148 IPCSec. 149 IPCSec. 323 IPCSec. 324 IPCSec. 7(b) Arms ActSec. 27(ii) Arms ActSec. 482 Cr.P.C.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr, (2014) 6 SCC 466
High Court power under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. to quash prosecutions in cases of settlement even for non‑compoundable offences

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants submitted that there is a real settlement between the defacto complainant and the petitioners, and that continuing prosecution would serve no purpose. They relied on established Supreme Court principles (Gian Singh and Narinder Singh) permitting quashing under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. in the context of settlement, even for non‑compoundable offences, to conserve judicial time and resources.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents supported the court exercising its inherent powers under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. to quash where there is a genuine settlement and where continuation would not serve the ends of justice; they referenced the settled disputes and the need to avoid fruitless litigation.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	(2012) 10 SCC 303	Positive	Acknowledged as the primary authority supporting quashing of prosecutions under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. in cases of genuine settlement, including non-compoundable offences.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr	(2014) 6 SCC 466	Positive	Cited for the principle that a real settlement between parties can justify quashing of proceedings under Cr.P.C., reinforcing the court's use of its power in the present case.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Abhilash @ Renjith (4th accused) v. State of Kerala & Santosh @ Unni and Raji (connected to Crime No.686/2009) — Crl.MC.No.7785/2019(C) & Crl.MC.No.7789/2019(C) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 27TH KARTHIKA, 1941** ## **Crl.MC.No.7785 OF 2019(C)** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN LP 94/2014 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS , KAYAMKULAM** **CRIME NO.686/2009 OF Kayamkulam Police Station , Alappuzha** ## **PETITIONER/4TH ACCUSED:** **ABHILASH @ RENJITH AGED 38 YEARS S/O.REGHUNATHAN,THACHILLATHU VEETIL, NJAKKANAL MURI,KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE,KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690516.** **BY ADV. SMT.HYMA.S** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM-682031.** **2 SANTHOSH @ UNNI S/O.KAMALAN,CHAKKALA KIZHAKKATHIL, FROM CHOLOOR KIZHAKKATHIL,KAPPIL MEKKU MURI,KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPILLY TALUK,KARTHIKAPPILLY.P.O,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690516.** **3 RAJI W/O.SANTHOSH @ UNNI,CHAKKALA KIZHAKKATHIL,FROM CHOOLOOR KIZHAKKATHIL,KAPPIL MEKKU MURI, KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE,KARTHIKAPPILLY TALUK, KARTHIKAPPILLY-690516.** **R2-3 BY ADV. LISHA.M.G.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.11.2019, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.7789/2019(C), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.MC.No.7785 & 7789 OF 2019(C)** **2** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 27TH KARTHIKA, 1941** ## **Crl.MC.No.7789 OF 2019(C)** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 94/2018 OF SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA** **CRIME NO.686/2009 OF Kayamkulam Police Station , Alappuzha** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 & 2:** |**1**|**SURAJ**| |---|---| ||**AGED 38 YEARS**| ||**S/O.SURENDRAN,POOMANGALAM VEEDU,**| ||**KAPPIL EAST MURI,KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE,**| ||**KARTHIKAPPILLY TALUK,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.**| |**2**|**SUNIL KUMAR,**| ||**AGED 39 YEARS**| ||**S/O DASHADHARAN,KOCHUPURAYIL VEEDU @**| ||**CHIRAYIL,NJAKKANAL MURIYIL,**| ||**KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE,KARTHIKAPPILLY TALUK,**| ||**ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.**| ||**BY ADV. SMT.HYMA.S**| ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM-682031.** - **2 SANTHOSH @ UNNI AGED 42 YEARS S/O.KAMALAN,CHAKKALA KIZHAKKATHIL, FROM CHOOLOOR KIZHAKKATHIL, KAPPIL MEKKU MURI,KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE,KARTHIKAPPILLY TALUK, KARTHIKAPPILLY.P.O,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690516.** - **3 RAJI W/O.SANTHOSH @ UNNI,CHAKKALA KIZHAKKATHIL,FROM CHOOLOOR KIZHAKKATHIL,KAPPIL MEKKU MURI, KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE,KARTHIKAPILLY TALUK,KARTHIKAPPILLY.P.O,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690516.** **Crl.MC.No.7785 & 7789 OF 2019(C)** **3** **R2-3 BY ADV. LISHA.M.G.** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.11.2019, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.7785/2019(C), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.MC.No.7785 & 7789 OF 2019(C)** **4** **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ----------------------------------------Crl.M.C. Nos.7785 & 7789 of 2019 ----------------------------------------Dated this the 18[th] day of November, 2019** ## **O R D E R** The two petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.7789/2019 and the sole petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.7785/2019 have been originally arrayed as accused 1, 3 and 4 respectively among the 5 accused in the instant Crime No.686/2009 of Kayamkulam Police Station which has been registered for the offences punishable under Secs. 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 of the IPC and Sec.7(b) & sec. 27(ii) of the Arms Act. The Police after investigation has filed final report/charge sheet in the instant case for the abovesaid offences and the case was later committed to the Sessions Court. The trial as against the petitioners herein (original accused 1, 3 and 4) in the FIR has been split up as they were not available for trial. The trial as against the original accused No.5 in the crime has proceeded and court of the Asst. Sessions Judge, Mavelikkara as per judgment dated 30.01.2018 in S.C.No.558/2011 has acquitted the said original accused No.5 in this case. The defacto complainant has settled the entire disputes with the original accused No.2 in the instant case and this Court as per order dated 09.03.2017 in Crl.M.C.No.1660/2017 filed by original accused No.2 (Sudheesh) has quashed the impugned criminal proceedings in S.C. No.358/2014 on the file of the abovesaid court below concerned has been quashed to the extent it is directed as against the original accused No.2. **Crl.MC.No.7785 & 7789 OF 2019(C)** **5** 2. Now, it is stated by the learned Advocates appearing for the petitioners/accused and the learned Advocate appearing for the defacto complainant that the entire disputes between the defacto complainant and the petitioners herein (original accused 1, 3 and 4) and the 2[nd] respondent/defacto complainant and the 3[rd] respondent/injured has settled their disputes between the petitioners/accused and they have separately sworn to Annexures- A2 and A3 affidavits stating that they do not wish to continue the impugned proceedings and that they have no objection whatsoever in this Court quashing the impugned criminal proceedings to the extent as it is directed as against the petitioners herein. 3. In a catena of decisions, the Apex Court has held that, in appropriate cases involving even non-compoundable offences, the High Court can quash prosecution by exercise of the powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C., if the parties have really settled the whole dispute or if the continuance of the prosecution will not serve any purpose. Here, this Court finds a real case of settlement between the parties and it is also found that continuance of the prosecution in such a situation will not serve any purpose other than wasting the precious time of the court, when the case ultimately comes before the court. On a perusal of the petition and on a close scrutiny of the investigation materials on record and the affidavit of settlement and taking into account the attendant facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the legal principles laid down by the Apex Court in the cases as in _**Gian Singh** v._ _**State of Punjab**_ reported in 2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 160 = (2012) 10 SCC 303 and _**Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr**_ . reported in **Crl.MC.No.7785 & 7789 OF 2019(C)** **6** (2014) 6 SCC 466, more particularly paragraph 29 thereof, could be applied in this case to consider the prayer for quashment. 4. It is also pointed out that the case as against the petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.7789/2019 (original accused Nos.1 and 3) is now pending as S.C.No.94/2018 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Court, Mavelikkara and the case as against the sole petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.7785/2019 (original accused No.4) is now pending as L.P.No.94/2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kayamkulam etc. Accordingly, it is ordered in the interest of justice that all further proceedings in L.P.No.94/2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kayamkulam and the impugned Anx.A1 final report in S.C.No.558/2011 on the files of the Asst.Sessions Court, Mavelikkara and all further proceedings arising therefrom pending against original accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 will stand quashed. 5. The petitioners will produce certified copies of this order to the Investigating Officer concerned and the abovesaid court below concerned. Office of Advocate General will forward copy of this order to the Investigating Officer concerned, for necessary information. With these observations and directions, the above Criminal Miscellaneous Cases stand finally disposed of. SD/- ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE** SKS **Crl.MC.No.7785 & 7789 OF 2019(C)** **7** ## **APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 7785/2019** |**PETITIONER'S/S**|**EXHIBITS:**| |---|---| |**ANNEXURE A1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN**| ||**S.C.NO.558/2011 (CRIME NO.686/2009 OF**| ||**KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION,ALAPPUZHA**| ||**DISTRICT)BEFORE THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS**| ||**COURT,MAVELIKKARA.**| |**ANNEXURE A2**|**ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY 2ND RESPONDENT**| ||**DATED 5.11.2019**| |**ANNEXURE A3**|**ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY 3RD RESPONDENT**| ||**DATED 5.11.2019.**| **Crl.MC.No.7785 & 7789 OF 2019(C)** **8** ## **APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 7789/2019** |**PETITIONER'S/S**|**EXHIBITS:**| |---|---| |**ANNEXURE A1**|**CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN**| ||**S.C.NO.558/2011 (CRIME NO.686/2009 OF**| ||**KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION,ALAPPUZHA**| ||**DISTRICT)BEFORE THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS**| ||**COURT,MAVELIKKARA.**| |**ANNEXURE A2**|**ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY 2ND RESPONDENT**| ||**DATED 5.11.2019.**| |**ANNEXURE A3**|**ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY 3RD RESPONDENT**| ||**DATED 5.11.2019.**|