High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-06-03Quashed

Abilash K. v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC. No.3015 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan.V
Judgment Date: 2016-06-03
Court Decision / Holding: All further proceedings against the petitioner in C.C No. 235 of 2014 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur shall stand quashed.
Final Disposition: Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Abilash K.

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor
Santosh K
Rafi

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri Titus Mani
• Sri P.A. Jacob
• Sri Binny Thomas

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri R. Mahesh (Kottappuram)
• Public Prosecutor Sri Rajesh Vijayan

Case Synopsis & Summary

Abilash K., the sole accused in CC 235 of 2014 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Payyannur, faces offences under IPC sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 294(b) (use of obscene words in a public place), 341 (wrongful restraint), and 506 (criminal intimidation). In this criminal miscellaneous case, he seeks to quash all further proceedings on the ground that the dispute with the de facto complainant (2nd respondent) and the injured (3rd respondent) has been settled by a compromise. The 2nd and 3rd respondents have sworn affidavits indicating they have forgiven the petitioner and do not wish to continue the prosecution. The petitioner contends that the offences are essentially private in nature, and continued prosecution would be an abuse of process and futile in light of the settlement. The State's counsel notes that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. The Public Prosecutor appears concerned with procedural correctness, while the respondents’ counsel supports quashing in light of the consent affidavits. Citing Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, and Yogendra Yadav, the court recalls that the inherent power to quash is to secure ends of justice and prevent abuse where the dispute is private and settled. After examining the records, the court finds the compromise voluntary and genuine, and holding that continuance would defeat the purpose of justice, it allows the petition and quashes the proceedings.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 323 IPCSection 294(b) IPCSection 341 IPCSection 506 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ends of justice (doctrine)
Prevention of abuse of process of the court
Inherent power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings
Private or personal nature of offences can be quashed if settled amicably

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner's counsel submits that the dispute between the accused and the victims has been amicably settled; affidavits A3 and A4 indicate forgiveness and lack of objection to prosecution. It is argued that the offences are of a personal nature and continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process and futile in light of the settlement. The compromise is voluntary and genuine, made without coercion, and intended to restore peace. Citing Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, and Yogendra Yadav, the counsel contends that high courts can quash in appropriate cases where the offender and victim have resolved their disputes, thereby serving ends of justice and the community’s welfare. The court is urged to accept the settlement and terminate the case, ensuring the accused refrains from further violence while not undermining public interest.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents’ counsel supports quashing in light of the consensual affidavits (A3, A4), asserting no objection to quashing. They contend that the offences, though bailable, are of a personal nature and the settlement aligns with the victims’ wishes to avoid protracted proceedings. The State’s counsel notes no criminal antecedents on the part of the petitioner. The respondents emphasize that the compromise should be respected to prevent oppression and to preserve harmony between the parties, while acknowledging societal interests must be balanced with the private settlement.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	(2012) 10 SCC 303	Positive	High Court can take note of amicable settlement to end criminal proceedings in appropriate cases.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	(2014) 6 SCC 466	Positive	Reiterates the principle that amicable settlements may justify quashing where appropriate.
Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another	(2014) 9 SCC 653	Positive	Affirms inherent power to quash in appropriate cases considering private nature of offence.

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 Abilash K. v. State of Kerala and Others 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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2016/13TH JYAISHTA, 1938H Crl.MC. No.3015 of 2016 () --------------------------- IN CC 235/2014 ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, PAYYANNUR IN CRIME NO. 43/2014 OF PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION , KANNUR PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED: ----------------------------- ABILASH K. AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.RAGHAVAN, KIZHIKKANIYIL HOUSE, RAMANTHALI AMSOM, ETTIKULAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.TITUS MANI SRI.P.A.JACOB SRI.BINNY THOMAS RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, 682031. 2. SANTHOSH.K, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.ACHUTHAN, KOKKIRI HOUSE, RAMANTHALI AMSOM, ETTIKULAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. RAFI, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.UMMER, MUKKONKOCHANTEPARACKU HOUSE, RAMANTHALI AMSOM, ETTIKULAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.R.MAHESH (KOTTAPPURAM) R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC. No.3015 of 2016 () ------------------------------ ## APPENDIX ## PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES: --------------------------------- A1: A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.43/2014 OF PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION. A2: A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.43/2014 OF THE PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION. A3: AN AFFIDAVIT IN ORIGINAL FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. A4: AN AFFIDAVIT IN ORIGINAL FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. ## RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:-NIL ---------------------------------------- KRJ //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J** = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C No.3015 of 2016 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated 3[rd] June, 2016 ## **ORDER** 1. The petitioner herein is the sole accused in C.C No. 235 of 2014 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur involving offences punishable under Sections 323, 294 (b), 341 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. The 2[nd] respondent is the _de facto_ complainant and the 3[rd] respondent is the injured. This petition is filed seeking to quash alll further proceedings in the above case on the ground that the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3 have been settled and compromised. - 2.Prosecution allegation is that on 13.01.2014 at 3:40 Crl.MC.3015/16 **-:2:-** p.m, the petitioner had abused respondents 2 and 3 who are the driver and conductor of a bus and assaulted them. - 3.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3. 4.It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that during the pendency of criminal proceedings, the matter has been settled and the parties have decided to keep harmony between them. It is further submitted that the respondents 2 and 3 have shown the virtue and gentility to forgive the petitioners for their wrong doing. The petitioners, it is submitted, has undertaken that they would refrain from committing acts of violence. Finally it Crl.MC.3015/16 **-:3:-** submitted that in essence the offences involved are of a personal nature and are not offences against the society and that continuation of criminal proceedings will only be an exercise in futility. 5.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 submitted that Annexures A3 and A4 affidavits have been sworn to by the victims, wherein it has been asserted that the matter has been settled and they do not intend to continue with the criminal prosecution. It is also submitted that respondents 2 and 3 do not have any objection in allowing this petition and in quashing the proceedings. - 6.Learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that petitioner is not a person with criminal antecedents. - 7.It is thus borne out from the submissions made at Crl.MC.3015/16 **-:4:-** the Bar that the parties have amicably settled their disputes on their free will and without any kind of pressure, influence or coercion. The compromise, it is felt, is voluntarily and genuine and can be acted upon. The law with regard to the settlement of criminal disputes on the strength of an amicable resolution of the disputes between the parties is no more _res integra_ . 8.In **Gian Singh** v. **State of Punjab** [(2012) 10 SCC 303], Apex Court has laid down that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. This view was reiterated in **Narinder Singh** v. **State of Punjab** [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and **Yogendra Yadav and Others** v. **State of Jharkhand and** Crl.MC.3015/16 **-:5:-** ## **Another** [(2014) 9 SCC 653]. 9.It was held that the inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. It was held that certain categories of cases involving heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute as those offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. But those cases where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and those in which the parties have resolved their entire dispute could fittingly be quashed by this court Crl.MC.3015/16 ## **-:6:-** taking into account the compromise between the offender and victim. In such cases the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused and the _de facto_ complainant to great oppression and prejudice. 10.After having anxiously considered the submissions it is felt that it would be unfair and contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding . It would only tantamount to abuse of process of law to subject the parties to the ordeal of a protracted criminal proceeding despite the settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer. Settlement will augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony. 11.I am of the firm view that this petition can be Crl.MC.3015/16 **-:7:-** allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner in C.C No. 235 of 2014 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur shall stand quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V JUDGE** krj.3/6/16