Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed (final report and further proceedings q...

Anandhu K S and others v. State of Kerala and Sujith P.K. and Ajithkumar P.K.

Case / Petition Number:CRL.M.C.NO.480 OF 2021 (H)
Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • V. G. Arun
Judgment Date
2021-02-09
Court Decision / Holding
The CRL.M.C is allowed. The final report in Crime No.95/2018 and further proceedings in CC No.954/2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ranny are quashed.
Final Disposition
Quashed (final report and further proceedings quashed)

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Anandhu K S
  • Vishnumon V.S.
  • Vishakhmon V.S.
  • Ankoor Bijumon
  • Hariprasad
  • Aswin S.
  • Pankaj S.
  • Sudhin Surendan
  • Arun C.Philip
  • Libin N.
  • Aneesh T.
  • Jishnu Nandan
  • Akshay Shaji
  • Ratheesh Kamalan
  • Nandhu S. Saji
  • Arun Singh
  • Sujiraj
  • Jithu P.Vinod

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam-11
  • Sujith P.K.
  • Ajithkumar P.K.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri Shiju Varghese

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a criminal miscellaneous case (CRL.M.C.No.480 of 2021) heard by the Kerala High Court, a Single Judge, Justice V. G. Arun, on 9 February 2021. The petition seeks to quash the final report in Crime No.95/2018 of Moozhiyar Police Station, which has led to CC No.954/2018 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ranny, involving 18 accused persons for offences under IPC Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 341, 427 and 506(ii). The de facto complainant (2nd respondent) and the injured (3rd respondent) have filed affidavits stating that the dispute has been amicably settled and they have no subsisting grievances. The Public Prosecutor notes that some petitioners have prior criminal antecedents, but the offences are not very serious. After considering the gravity of the offences, the injuries caused, and the affidavits, the court finds that the dispute is settled and that there is no public interest in continuing the proceedings; even the counter case is being quashed on the basis of the settlement. Citing Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, the court holds there is no impediment to granting the relief sought. Accordingly, the CRL.M.C is allowed and the final report and further proceedings in CC 954/2018 are quashed, thereby terminating the criminal action against the petitioners.”

Provisions of Law Cited

IPC Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 341, 427 and 506(ii)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Abuse of process of court
  • Settlement between parties as basis for quashing criminal proceedings

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submitted that the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties, the de facto complainant and injured have no grievance, and continued criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process and against public interest. They highlighted that some petitioners have criminal antecedents but the offences are not very serious, and that quashing would aid in maintaining peace given the settlement and absence of ongoing grievance.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents relied on the affidavits from the 2nd and 3rd respondents indicating amicable settlement and no further grievance. The Public Prosecutor noted the offences are not very serious and submitted that, with the dispute settled, there is no public interest in continuing the proceedings.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab(2008) 4 SCC 582PositiveCited as authority supporting the principle that quashing is permissible where the dispute is settled and no public interest warrants continuation.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another(2012) 10 SCC 303PositiveCited for the same principle of permissible quashing in cases where settlement exists and public interest is not involved.

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 Anandhu K S and others v. State of Kerala and Sujith P.K. and Ajithkumar P.K. 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 V.G.ARUN** ## **TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 20TH MAGHA,1942** ## **Crl.MC.No.480 OF 2021(H)** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 954/2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,RANNI CRIME NO.95/2018 OF MOOZHIYAR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED PERSONS:** |**1**|**ANANDHU K S**| |---|---| ||**AGED 26 YEARS**| ||**S/O.SASI.K.S., KOCHUMEMURIVIL HOUSE, ANGAMOOZHI P.O.,**| ||**PIN-689 662, SEETHATHODU VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK,**| ||**PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT (CHITTAR POLICE STATION**| ||**LIMIT).**| |**2**|**VISHNUMON.V.S.,**| ||**AGED 28 YEARS**| ||**S/O.SUGATHAN, VISHNU BHAVAN, ANGAMOOZHI P.O., PIN-689**| ||**662, SEETHATHODU VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA**| ||**DISTRICT (CHITTAR POLICE STATION LIMIT).**| |**3**|**VISHAKHMON.V.S.,**| ||**AGED 27 YEARS**| ||**S/O.SUGATHAN, VISHNU BHAVAN, ANGAMOOZHI P.O., PIN-689**| ||**662, SEETHATHODU VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA**| ||**DISTRICT (CHITTAR POLICE STATION LIMIT).**| |**4**|**ANKOOR BIJUMON,**| ||**AGED 22 YEARS**| ||**S/O.BIIUMON, ANKOOR BHAVAN, ANGAMOOZHI P.O., PIN-689**| ||**662, SEETHATHODU VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA**| ||**DISTRICT (CHITTAR POLICE STATION LIMIT).**| |**5**|**HARIPRASAD,**| ||**AGED 21 YEARS**| ||**S/O.PRASAD, KARAKKAL HOUSE, ANGAMOOZHI P.O., PIN-689**| ||**662, SEETHATHODU VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA**| ||**DISTRICT (CHITTAR POLICE STATION LIMIT).**| |**6**|**ASWIN.S.,**| ||**AGED 27 YEARS**| ||**S/O.SHIBU, MAVELIL HOUSE, ANGAMOOZHI P.O., PIN-689**| ||**662, SEETHATHODU VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA**| ||**DISTRICT (CHITTAR POLICE STATION LIMIT).**| CRL.M.C.NO.480 OF 2021 2 - **7 PANKAJ.S., AGED 22 YEARS** **S/O.K.G.SHIJU, KOMPANOLIL HOUSE, ANGAMOOZHI P.O., PIN-689 662, SEETHATHODU VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT (CHITTAR POLICE STATION LIMIT).** - **8 SUDHIN SURENDRAN, AGED 28 YEARS** **S/O.SUREDNRAN, ALAPPATTU HOUSE, ANGAMOOZHI P.O., PIN-689 662, SEETHATHODU VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT (CHITTAR POLICE STATION LIMIT).** - **9 ARUN C.PHILIP, AGED 27 YEARS** **S/O.C.T.PHILIP, CHERIVUKALAYIL HOUSE, ANGAMOOZHI P.O., PIN-689 662, SEETHATHODU VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT (CHITTAR POLICE STATION LIMIT).** - **10 LIBIN.N., AGED 22 YEARS** **S/O.LENIN.N.V., NIRAPURACKAL HOUSE, ANGAMOOZHI P.O., PIN-689 662, SEETHATHODU VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT (CHITTAR POLICE STATION LIMIT).** - **11 ANEESH.T., AGED 35 YEARS** **S/O.THULASIDHARAN, VAZHAKALAVIL HOUSE, ANGAMOOZHI P.O., PIN-689 662, SEETHATHODU VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT (CHITTAR POLICE STATION LIMIT).** - **12 JISHNU NANDANAN, AGED 29 YEARS** **S/O.NANDHANAN, CHERIVUPURAYIDATHIL HOUSE, ANGAMOOZHI P.O., PIN-689 662, SEETHATHODU VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT (CHITTAR POLICE STATION LIMIT).** - **13 AKSHAY SHAJI, AGED 21 YEARS** **S/O.SHAJI, KEDANGIL HOUSE, ANGAMOOZHI P.O., PIN-689 662, SEETHATHODU VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT (CHITTAR POLICE STATION LIMIT).** CRL.M.C.NO.480 OF 2021 3 **14 RATHEESH KAMALAN, AGED 40 YEARS S/O.KAMALAN, KAITHOLIKAL HOUSE, ANGAMOOZHI P.O., PIN-689 662, SEETHATHODU VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT (CHITTAR POLICE STATION LIMIT). 15 NANDHU S.SAJI, AGED 20 YEARS S/O.SAJIMON.C.T., NANDHANAM HOUSE, ANGAMOOZHI P.O., PIN-689 662, SEETHATHODU VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT (CHITTAR POLICE STATION LIMIT). 16 ARUN SINGH, AGED 32 YEARS S/O.N.R.SINGH, NARIKUZHIYIL HOUSE, ANGAMOOZHI P.O., PIN-689 662, SEETHATHODU VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT (CHITTAR POLICE STATION LIMIT). 17 SUJIRAJ, AGED 30 YEARS S/O.RAJAN, PUNNAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, KOCHUKOICKAL P.O., PIN-689 645, PATHANAMTHITTA SEETHATHODU VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, (CHITTAR POLICE STATION LIMIT).** - **18 JITHU P.VINOD, AGED 26 YEARS S/O.VINOD, PULLIYIL HOUSE, PIN-689 645, PATHANAMTHITTA ANGAMOOZHI P.O., PIN-689 662, SEETHATHODU VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT (CHITTAR POLICE STATION LIMIT).** ## **BY ADV. SRI.SHIJU VARGHESE** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-11** **2 SUJITH.P.K., AGED 32 YEARS S/O.PUSHPANGADAN, KULATHUMKAROTTU HOUSE, KOCHUKOICKAL P.O., PIN-689 645, PATHANAMTHITTA SEETHATHODU VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT (CHITTAR POLICE STATION LIMIT).** CRL.M.C.NO.480 OF 2021 4 **3 AJITHKUMAR.P.K., AGED 26 YEARS S/O.PUSHPANGADAN, KULATHUMKAROTTU HOUSE, KOCHUKOICKAL P.O., PIN-689 645, PATHANAMTHITTA SEETHATHODU VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT (CHITTAR POLICE STATION LIMIT).** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **PP T.R.RENJITH** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** CRL.M.C.NO.480 OF 2021 5 ## **O R D E R** ## **Dated this the 9th day of February 2021** Petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 18 in Crime No.95/2018 registered at the Moozhiyar Police Station, Pathanamthitta for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324,341, 427 and 506(ii) of IPC, now pending as C.C.No.954/2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ranny. The _de facto_ complainant, at whose instance the crime was registered, and the other person injured are arrayed as the 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents. Annexure-A2 and Annexure-A3 affidavits have been filed by 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents stating that the dispute, which was the reason for the incident and registration of the crime, has been resolved amicably and they have no subsisting grievance against the petitioners. CRL.M.C.NO.480 OF 2021 6 2. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also, who, on instructions, submits that some of the petitioners have criminal antecedents, though the offences alleged are not very serious in nature. ## 3. Having considered the gravity of the offences alleged, nature of the injury caused and having perused the affidavits filed by the 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents, the contents of which are submitted to be true and voluntary, I am satisfied that the dispute is settled and no public interest is involved in this matter. That, the counter case registered at the instance of the petitioners is also being quashed, based on the settlement, is a relevant consideration. Moreover, in view of the settlement, possibility of the criminal proceedings ending in conviction is remote and would aid in maintaining peace among the two groups. As such, continuance of the proceedings will amount to an abuse of process of court and CRL.M.C.NO.480 OF 2021 7 hence, in view of the legal position set out by the Honourable Supreme Court in _**Madan**_ _**Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab**_ [(2008) 4 SCC 582] and _**Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another**_ [(2012) 10 SCC 303], there is no impediment in granting the relief sought. In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure-A1, Final Report in Crime No.95/2018 of Moozhiyar Police Station and further proceedings in C.C.No.954/2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court- I, Ranny are quashed. ## **Sd/-** ## **V.G.ARUN** **JUDGE** NB CRL.M.C.NO.480 OF 2021 8 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS'S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 30.04.2018 AS C.C NO.954/2018.** **ANNEXURE A2 ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 26.12.20-19. ANNEXURE A3 ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 26.12.2019.**