Anand @ Tintu v. State of Kerala and others

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date: 2019-07-12
Court Decision / Holding: The petitions are allowed. Annexure-A2 final report in Crime No. 253/2014 of Kadakkal Police Station and all further proceedings (SC No. 428/2015 and SC No. 60/2017) on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Kottarakkara are quashed.
Final Disposition: Quashed; final report quashed and proceedings before the Sessions Court quashed, facilitating amicable settlement and peace between parties.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Anand @ Tintu
Anandhu
Surendran Pillai
Abhinand
Sajin

Respondents

State of Kerala
The Sub Inspector of Police, Kadakkal Police Station
Anil Kumar
Shinu
Shinod

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Alexander George

Counsels for Respondents

• K.K. Nesna
• Ajith Murali (Public Prosecutor)

Case Synopsis & Summary

These Criminal Misc. Cases (Crl.M.C. Nos. 3714/2019 and 3762/2019) arise from Crime No. 253/2014 of Kadakkal Police Station, Kollam, leading to SC Nos. 428/2015 and 60/2017 before the Assistant Sessions Court, Kottarakkara. The petitioners (accused nos. 2–6 in 2014; and the 4th accused in 3714/2019) seek invocation of section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the entire proceedings on the basis of amicable settlement and changed circumstances. The relevant incident occurred on 16.02.2014 when the petitioners formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted the de facto complainant and associates, causing injuries. The petitioners’ counsel argue that the disputes are private and have been resolved through affidavits by victims stating no further grievance, and that continuing the prosecution would serve no public interest. The State, through the Public Prosecutor, states there is no serious objection to quashing as no public interest is involved; the investigation reportedly found no other crimes by the petitioners. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, the High Court notes that amicable settlements may justify terminating criminal proceedings in appropriate cases. The court accepts that the offences are personal, not gravely injurious, and that settlement would promote peace and prevent oppression. The petitions are allowed; the final report in Crime No. 253/2014 and all proceedings before the SC Nos. 428/2015 and 60/2017 are quashed, quelling the criminal process.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 Cr.P.C.IPC: Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326, 308 r/w 149

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 – principle that amicable settlements can justify quashing criminal proceedings in appropriate cases
Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat (2017) 12 SCALE 187 – reiteration of amicable settlement doctrine

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that the disputes have been resolved amicably and the private nature of the injuries and the lack of public interest justify quashing the ongoing criminal proceedings. They contend that continuing the prosecution would be oppressive and that settlement will enable the parties to live peacefully without undermining state interests.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents, through the Public Prosecutor, acknowledge no public interest opposes quashing; the IO reports no additional crimes by petitioners, and the State has no serious objection to quashing as no public interest is involved.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 (10) SCC 303	Positive	Apex Court held that amicable resolution of disputes can be taken into account to terminate criminal proceedings in appropriate cases.
Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat	2017 (12) SCALE 187	Positive	View reiterated that amicable settlements can justify quashing of criminal proceedings.

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 12TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 21ST ASHADHA, 1941** **Crl.MC.No.3714 of 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC NO.60/2017 OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, KOTTARAKKARA** **CRIME NO.253/2014 OF KADAKKAL POLICE STATION, KOLLAM** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4:** **ANAND @ TINTU, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. SOMAN, ANAND BHAVAN, KILITHATTU, MATHIRA MURI, MANGODU VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE** ## **RESPONDENTS/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT/STATE:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA,**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,**| ||**HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031**| |**2**|**ANIL KUMAR, AGED 38 YEARS,**| ||**S/O. BHUVANACHANDRAN NAIR, SAJANA MANDIRAM,**| ||**THOTTUMUKKU, MATHIRA MURI, MANGODU VILLAGE,**| ||**KOLLAM - 691 536.**| |**3**|**SHINU, S/O. SOMAN,**| ||**THADATHARIKKATH VEETIL, KUTTIKKAL, MATHIRA MURI,**| ||**MANKODU VILLAGE, KOLLAM - 691 536.**| |**4**|**SHINOD, AGED 34 YEARS,**| ||**S/O. SOMAN, SHEEJA BHAVAN, KUTTIKKAL, MATHIRA MURI,**| ||**MANKODU VILLAGE, KOLLAM - 691 536.**| |**5**|**THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE**| ||**KADAKKAL POLICE STATION - 691 536.**| ||**BY ADV. SMT.K.K.NESNA**| ||**BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AJITH MURALI**| **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.07.2019, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.3762/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** CRL.M.C. NOS.3714 & 3762 OF 2019 2 **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 21ST ASHADHA, 1941** **Crl.MC.No.3762 of 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 428/2015 OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, KOTTARAKKARA** **CRIME NO.253/2014 OF KADAKKAL POLICE STATION, KOLLAM** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.2,3,5 AND 6:** - **1 ANANDHU, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.SURENDRAN PILLAI, ARCHANA BHAVAN, THOTTUMUKKU KILITHATTU, MATHIRA MURI, MANGODU VILLAGE, KOLLAM.** - **2 SURENDRAN PILLAI, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.SUKUMARA PILLAI, ARCHANA BHAVAN, THOTTUMUKKU KILITHATTU, MATHIRA MURI, MANGODU VILLAGE, KOLLAM.** - **3 ABHINAND, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.SOMAN ANAND BHAVAN, KILITHATTU, MATHIRA MURI, MANGODU VILLAGE, KOLLAM.** - **4 SAJIN, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.SAJAYAN, SAJINA VILASAM, MATHIRA MURI, MANGODU VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE** ## **RESPONDENTS/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT/STATE:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031** - **2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADAKKAL POLICE STATION-691536** CRL.M.C. NOS.3714 & 3762 OF 2019 3 **3 ANIL KUMAR, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.BHUVANACHANDRAN NAIR, SAJANA MANDIRAM, THOTTUMUKKU, MATHIRA MURI, MAGODU VILLAGE, KOLLAM-691536. 4 SHINU, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.SOMAN, THADATHARIKKATH VEETIL, KUTTIKKAL, MATHIRA MRI, MANKODU VILLAGE, KOLLAM-691536 5 SHINOD, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O SOMAN, SHEEJA BHAVAN, KUTTIKAL, MATHIRA MURI, MANKODU VILLAGE, KOLLAM BY ADV. SMT.K.K.NESNA BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AJITH MURALI** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.07.2019, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.3714/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** CRL.M.C. NOS.3714 & 3762 OF 2019 4 ## **ORDER** These petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 2. The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.2 to 6 in Crime No.253 of 2014 of the Kadakkal Police Station. Investigation was completed and final report was laid before the jurisdictional Magistrate. They have been summoned to answer a charge under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326, 308 r/w. Section 149 of the IPC. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the 1[st] accused died during the pendency of the proceedings. The petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.3762 of 2019 are the accused Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6 and the petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.3714 of 2019 is the 4[th] accused. The cases are pending before the Assistant Sessions Court, Kottarakkara as S.C.Nos. 428 of 2015 and 60 of 2017. They have approached this Court seeking to quash the entire proceedings on the ground of amicable resolution of the entire disputes. 4. Brief facts of the case necessary to be noticed for considering the prayer sought for is that on 16.02.2014 at 9 pm, the petitioners along with the 1[st] accused formed themselves into an CRL.M.C. NOS.3714 & 3762 OF 2019 5 unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, assaulted the de facto complainant and his associates causing injuries. 5. Heard Sri. Alexander George, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt.Nesna K.K., the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents, and the learned Public Prosecutor. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that the parties have managed to resolve their disputes and have agreed to live peaceably. It is asserted that in the affidavits sworn to by the victims, they have stated that they have no further grievance against the petitioners. They maintain that the termination of the criminal proceedings would resolve a festering private dispute between the parties and enable them to pursue their life as law abiding citizens. According to the learned counsel, no purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings in view of the changed circumstances. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the investigating officer has reported that no other crimes are registered against the petitioners. It is further submitted that the State has no serious objection in quashing the proceedings as no public interest is involved. CRL.M.C. NOS.3714 & 3762 OF 2019 6 8. I have considered the submissions advanced and have perused the records. The records do not reveal that any serious injuries were sustained by the victims. In **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab** [(2012) 10 SCC 303], the Apex Court has held that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victims and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. This view was reiterated in **Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat** [2017 (12) SCALE 187] **.** 9. Having considered the submissions and on perusing the records, it appears that the offences are entirely personal in nature and do not affect public peace or tranquility. The injuries allegedly inflicted by the petitioners cannot be said to be grave and serious having ingredients of extreme mental depravity. It is also felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace. In a case such as the instant one, even if the prosecution is allowed to continue, it would not serve any purpose as the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. It can only result in putting the victims and the accused to unwanted oppression and prejudice. Settlement will augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony. CRL.M.C. NOS.3714 & 3762 OF 2019 7 In the result, these petitions is allowed. Annexure-A2 final report in Crime No.253 of 2014 of the Kadakkal Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant thereto pending as S.C. No.428 of 2015 and S.C.No. 60 of 2017 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Kottarakkara are quashed. ## **SD/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE** KRJ //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE CRL.M.C. NOS.3714 & 3762 OF 2019 8 ## **APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 3714/2019** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE NO.1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.253/2014 OF KADAKKAL POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT DATED 17/02/2014 ANNEXURE NO.2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.253/2014 OF KADAKKAL POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT DATED 21/04/2014 ANNEXURE NO.3 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 25/5/2019 ANNEXURE NO.4 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 25/5/2019 ANNEXURE NO.5 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 25/5/2019** ## **APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 3762/2019** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE NO.1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.253/2014 OF KADAKKAL POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT DATED 17/02/2014. ANNEXURE NO.2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.253/2014 OF KADAKKAL POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT DATED 21/04/2014 ANNEXURE NO.3 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 25.5.2019 ANNEXURE NO.4 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 25.5.2019 ANNEXURE NO.5 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 25.5.2019**