Anilkumar v. The State of Kerala and Others

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
Judgment Date: 2017-01-13
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is allowed under Section 482 CrPC; Annexure-B final report and all proceedings arising from Crime No.92/2016 in C.C.No.494 of 2016 are quashed.
Final Disposition: Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Anilkumar

Respondents

The State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Monisha Mohan
Aleesha Mathew
Aparna V.P.
Haritha A.V.
Anjana P.K.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri Suraj S.

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor SMT. M.K. Pushpalatha
• Sri Nirmal V. Nair

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case filed in the Kerala High Court under Section 482 CrPC by Anilkumar challenging the continuation of criminal proceedings in C.C.No.494 of 2016, arising from Crime No.92/2016 of the Railway Police Palakkad. The offences alleged fall under Section 119(b) of the Kerala Police Act. The petitioner, a marketing agent, is accused of recording videos on his mobile phone while travelling as a co-passenger with several students (Monisha Mohan, Aleesha Mathew, Aparna V.P., Haritha A.V., Anjana P.K.) in the Chennai–Mangalore Express. The petitioner seeks to invoke extraordinary inherent powers to quash the proceedings, arguing for an amicable settlement with the alleged victims and the absence of a grave public interest in continuing the case. Respondents 2–6 contend the dispute is purely personal and they do not wish to prosecute, supported by affidavits; the Public Prosecutor, however, expresses reservations about quashing on the basis of settlement. The High Court relies on Supreme Court precedents Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, noting that settlement may justify quashing if ends of justice and avoidance of abuse of process are served. After considering the circumstances and nature of the offence, the court quashes the proceedings and allows the petition, ending the criminal process against the petitioner.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482, Code of Criminal ProcedureSection 119(b), Kerala Police Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ends of justice
Abuse of process of law
Amicable settlement can terminate criminal proceedings (doctrine from Gian Singh and Narinder Singh)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner seeks to invoke the extraordinary powers under Section 482CrPC to quash the ongoing criminal proceedings in C.C.No.494 of 2016 on the basis of an amicable settlement with the alleged victims and the belief that the dispute is purely personal. The affidavits from the 2nd to 6th respondents indicate they do not intend to prosecute, and quashing would promote peace and harmony without compromising justice.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents/papers contended that the dispute appears personal and may not affect public peace; the 2nd–6th respondents provided affidavits showing no intention to prosecute, supporting termination of proceedings to promote peace, while the Public Prosecutor requested careful consideration of quashing in view of the settlement and ends of justice.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	(2012) 10 SCC 303	Positive	Cited with approval to permit quashing of criminal proceedings in appropriate cases where settlement between victim and wrongdoer serves ends of justice and there is no abuse of process.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	(2014) 6 SCC 466	Positive	Reiterates conditions under which quashing may be appropriate on settlement to secure ends of justice and prevent abuse of process.

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 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/23RD POUSHA, 1938** ## **Crl.MC.No. 9060 of 2016 ()** **--------------------------CC. NO.494/2016 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III, PALAKKAD. CRIME NO.92/2016 OF RAILWAY POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD. .......** **PETITIONER(S): ----------------------ANILKUMAR, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY, RESIDING AT KUNDAN HOUSE, K. PURAM P.O., TANALUR VIA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 676 307.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.SURAJ.S.** |**RESPONDENT(S):**|**RESPONDENT(S):**| |---|---| |**---------------------------**|| |**1.**|**THE STATE OF KERALA,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,**| ||**HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,**| ||**COCHIN -682 011.**| |**2.**|**MONISHA MOHAN,**| ||**AGED 23 YEARS, D/O. MOHAN,**| ||**RESIDING AT LEENA NIVAS, KANAD,**| ||**EDAYANANNUR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT-670 595.**| |**3.**|**ALEESHA MATHEW,**| ||**AGED 21 YEARS, D/O.K.M. MATHEW,**| ||**RESIDING AT KUNNATHU KUZHIYIL,**| ||**NENMENI KUNNU P.O., THOTTAMULA, CHIRAL,**| ||**WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN- 673 595.**| |**4.**|**APARNA V.P.,**| ||**AGED 22 YEARS, D/O.V.D. PRAKASH,**| ||**RESIDING AT VATTATHOTTAYIL HOUSE,**| ||**NENMENI KUNNU P.O., CHIRAYIL VIA,**| ||**THOTTAMULA, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN- 673 595.**| ## **Crl.MC.No. 9060 of 2016** **5. HARITHA A.V., AGED 22 YEARS, D/O. VENUGOPALAN C.K., RESIDING AT GAYATHRI NIVAS, ALMATHATTA, KAYYUR, VALIYAPOYIL P.O., KASARAGOD, PIN- 671 313.** **6. ANJANA P.K., AGED 22 YEARS, RESIDING AT ANJANAM HOUSE, ECHIKULANGARA, PEELIKKODE P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN- 671 312.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K. PUSHPALATHA. R2 TO R6 BY ADV. SRI.NIRMAL V.NAIR.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## rs. ## **Crl.MC.No. 9060 of 2016** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-** |**ANNEXURE-A:**|**COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.92 OF 2016 OF THE**| |---|---| ||**RAILWAY POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD.**| |**ANNEXURE-B:**|**COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.92 OF 2016 OF THE**| ||**RAILWAY POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD.**| |**ANNEXURE-C:**|**AFFIDAVIT FILED BY 2ND RESPONDENT.**| |**ANNEXURE-D:**|**AFFIDAVIT FILED BY 3RD RESPONDENT.**| |**ANNEXURE-E:**|**AFFIDAVIT FILED BY 4TH RESPONDENT.**| |**ANNEXURE-F:**|**AFFIDAVIT FILED BY 5TH RESPONDENT.**| |**ANNEXURE-G:**|**AFFIDAVIT FILED BY 6TH RESPONDENT.**| **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** rs. ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.9060 of 2016** ## **----------------------------------------Dated this the 13[th] day of January, 2017** ## **O R D E R** - 1.This petition is filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) with a prayer to invoke the extraordinary inherent powers and to quash the pending criminal proceedings. - 2.The petitioner herein is the accused in C.C.No.494 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-III, Palakkad. The said case has arisen from Crime No.92 of 2016 of the Railway Police Station, Palakkad which was registered alleging offences punishable under sections 119 (b) of the Kerala Police Act. - 3.According to the prosecution, the respondents 2 to 6 are students and they were studying at Calicut. The petitioner herein is a marketing agent. While the respondents were on their way to Kannur in the Chennai - Mangalapuram Crl.M.C. 9060/2016 2 Express train, the petitioner herein who was a copassenger is alleged to have recorded videos using his mobile phone. - 4.Heard the submissions advanced. - 5.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 6 submits that it was on a misconception that Annexure-A FIR was registered. According to them, they are fully convinced about the innocence of the petitioner and referring to Annexure-C to Annexure-G affidavits it is submitted that they are not intending to prosecute him any further. It is urged that the dispute is purely personal in nature and would not affect public peace or tranquility. Summing up it is prayed that the criminal proceedings be terminated to promote peace and harmony. - 6.The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions has expressed his reservations in the matter of quashing the proceedings on the basis of settlement. It is submitted that the invocation of powers under Section 482 Crl.M.C. 9060/2016 3 of the Code in a case of this nature is not warranted. However, it is submitted that no other cases are reported against the petitioner. 7.I have considered the submissions . 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. It was observed as follows : _“61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”_ Crl.M.C. 9060/2016 4 9.The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court ## in **Narinder singh v. State of Punjab. (2014) 6 SCC** **466,** the pertinent observations which are as under: _XXXXXXXXXXXX_ _29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:_ _(i) ends of justice, or_ _(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives._ _xxxxxxx_ _xxxxxxx_ 10.The offence committed by the petitioner cannot be said to be grave and serious having ingredients of extreme mental depravity. It also does not appear that the offence in this case will have a serious impact on the society. It is felt that quashing of proceedings on account of Crl.M.C. 9060/2016 5 compromise would bring about peace and secure the ends of justice. Even otherwise, persisting with the prosecution would be nothing but a waste of time as the prospects of conviction would be bleak. 11.Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court will be well justified in invoking its extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings. In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-B final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner in C.C.No.494 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-III, Palakkad are quashed. **Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE** vps