Anoop s/o Appukuttan v. Ratheesh Kumar and State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan, V.
Judgment Date: 2016-09-26
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is allowed; the criminal proceedings in CC 115/2016 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-III, Attingal are quashed.
Final Disposition: Criminal proceedings quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Anoop s/o Appukuttan

Respondents

Ratheesh Kumar
State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Liju M.P.

Counsels for Respondents

• Sunil Kumar (Advocate General)
• Amjad Ali (Public Prosecutor)

Case Synopsis & Summary

The Kerala High Court, exercising its inherent powers under section 482 CrPC, considers a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by Anoop s/o Appukuttan seeking to quash Crime No.1825/2015 of Kilimanoor Police Station, pending as C.C.115/2016 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-III, Attingal. The FIR alleged offences under IPC sections 294(b) (uttering obscene language) and 323 (simple hurt). The petitioner and the first respondent reportedly arrived at a compromise, with the victim (first respondent) filing an affidavit absolving the petitioner. The petitioner relied on recorded judgments of the Supreme Court—Shiji @ Pappu and Others v. Radhika and Another, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another, and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab—to argue that the court may exercise its extraordinary power to quash proceedings in the interest of justice where the dispute has been settled and continued prosecution would be futile. The Public Prosecutor opposed quashing on the ground that the offences are grave, though the petitioner has no prior criminal history. After considering the compromise and the victim’s absolution, the judge concludes that the ends of justice require quashing the proceedings. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and CC 115/2016 is quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 CrPCSection 320 CrPCSection 294(b) IPCSection 323 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

ex debito justitiae
ends of justice
res integra

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner submitted that the disputes between the offender and the victim have been amicably resolved via compromise, and that the court's inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC permit quashing to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice, citing Shiji @ Pappu and Others v. Radhika and Another, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor argued that the offences’ nature and gravity do not permit quashing; however, the respondent states the petitioner has no criminal antecedents; the victim’s affidavit absolves the petitioner but the court should not quash in view of gravity.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Shiji @ Pappu and Others v. Radhika and Another	2011 (10) SCC 705	Positive	Cited to support the inherent power to quash proceedings in the ends-of-justice context.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another	2012 (10) SCC 303	Positive	Cited for principles on quashing in light of compromise and ends of justice.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	2014 (6) SCC 466	Positive	Cited in support of the exercise of inherent powers to secure ends of justice.

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** **MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/4TH ASWINA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 5409 of 2016 () ---------------------------** **CC 115/2016 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III, ATTINGAL. CRIME NO.1825/2015 OF KILIMANOOR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** **.......** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED :** **--------------------** **ANOOP,S/O.APPUKUTTAN, AGED 34, ANGANA, SHEEMAVILA, KODUVAZHANOOR, KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & COMPLAINAT:** **-----------------------------------------------** **1. RATHEESH KUMAR, S/O.SIVASANKARAPILLAI, AGED 35, SANNDHI, NEAR KODUVAZHANOOR VILLAGE OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KILIMANOOR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **mbr/** **Crl.MC.No. 5409 of 2016 () ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** |**PETITIONER(S)'**|**ANNEXURES:**|| |---|---|---| |**------------------------**||| |**ANNEXURE A:**|<br>**CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT/CHARGE IN**|| ||**CRIME NO.1825/2015 OF KILIMANOOR POLICE STATION.**|| |**ANNEXURE B:**|<br>**ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT DATED**|**20.07.2016 EXECUTED BY**| ||**THE 1ST RESPONDENT.**|| |**RESPONDENT(S)'**|**ANNEXURES:**<br>**NIL**|| |**------------------------**||| |||**//TRUE COPY//**| |||**P.S. TO JUDGE**| **mbr/** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V., J.** ------------------------------------------ ## **Crl.M.C. No. 5409 of 2016** ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 26[th] day of September, 2016 ## **O R D E R ~~~~~~~~** - 1.This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. - 2.On the basis of the information furnished by the 1[st] respondent herein, Crime No.1825 of 2015 was registered by the Kilimanoor Police Station against the petitioner herein, alleging offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, final report was laid before the jurisdictional court and the same is pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-III, Attingal as C.C.No.115 of 2016. - 3.The prosecution allegation in brief is that on 6.12.2015, the petitioner had abused the 1[st] respondent and Crl.M.C. No.5409 of 2016 **-2-** thereafter caused simple hurt. - 4.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the 1[st] respondent and also the learned Public Prosecutor. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent that an affidavit has been sworn to by the victim completely absolving the petitioner. - 5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in view of the compromise arrived at between the petitioner and the private respondent, the inherent power can be exercised by this Court and the entire proceedings are liable to be quashed. Reference is made to the judgment of the Apex Court in **Shiji @ Pappu and Others v. Radhika and Another** [2011(10) SCC 705], **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another** [2012(10) SCC 303] and **Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab** [2014 (6) SCC 466] to contend that this Court will be justified in Crl.M.C. No.5409 of 2016 **-3-** exercising inherent powers in a case of this nature to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. - 6.Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that the nature and gravity of offence are such that this Court will not be justified in exercising its discretionary powers. However, it is submitted that the petitioner is not a person with criminal antecedents. - 7.I have considered the rival submissions and have taken note of the fact that the disputes have been compromised and the victim has completely absolved the petitioner. The affidavit sworn to by the party respondent makes it abundantly clear that he does not wish that the criminal proceedings against the petitioner should continue. - 8.The legal position is no longer _res integra_ that the inhereint powers of this Court enshrined under Section Crl.M.C. No.5409 of 2016 **-4-** 482 of the Code is distinct from the power of a criminal court to compound the offence under Section 320 of the Code. The powers can be exercised _ex debito justitiae_ to render real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. However, the plenitude of the power under Section 482 of the Code by itself makes it obligatory for this Court to exercise the same with utmost care and caution. As held in the precedents cited above, securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor, the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled can be taken note of by this Court and proceedings can be quashed if it ultimately be only an exercise in futility and if justice demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored. As held in **Gian Singh** (supra) this Court within the framework of its inherent power can quash the criminal proceeding if it is satisfied on the face Crl.M.C. No.5409 of 2016 **-5-** of such settlement that there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be the casuality and ends of justice shall be defeated. 9.After anxiously considering the allegations it appears that the party respondent has completely absolved the petitioner and even if the criminal proceedings are taken to its logical conclusions it would be nothing but an exercise in futility. Further more, it is not reported that the petitioner is involved in any other criminal proceedings. In the above view of the matter, I am of the view that the inherent powers of this Court can be execrised for quashing the impugned criminal proceedings. In the result, this petition will stand allowed. The criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner on the file of Crl.M.C. No.5409 of 2016 **-6-** the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-III, Attingal as C.C.No.115 of 2016 are quashed. **Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V. JUDGE** Ps/26/9/16