Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed; FIR/Final Report against accused No.2 ...

Aravindakshan Nair v. Shalini Jayan and Others

Case / Petition Number:CRL.M.C.No.4296/2022

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Dr. Kauser Edappagath
Judgment Date
2022-08-12
Court Decision / Holding
The Crl.M.C. is allowed; the FIR/Final Report under Annexure-A3 in Crime No.139/2021 Maradu Police Station is quashed only against the petitioner/accused No.2 (Aravindakshan Nair). All further proceedings against accused No.2 stand quashed; proceedings against other accused may continue as per law.
Final Disposition
Quashed; FIR/Final Report against accused No.2 alone quashed; other accused not affected by this order.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Aravindakshan Nair

Respondents

  • Shalini Jayan
  • Jayan T.V
  • S.I. of Police Maradu Police Station
  • Commissioner of Police, Ernakulam
  • Vijaykumar
  • State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Tinu T. Joseph
  • • B.N. Shivsankar
  • • Archana Haridas

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sarun Rajan
  • • Megha Mukundaswar
  • • P.G. Manu

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C. No.4296 of 2022) filed in the Kerala High Court by Aravindakshan Nair, accused No.2, seeking to quash Annexure-A3 FIR No.139/2021 of Maradu Police Station under Sections 468, 471, 406, 420 and 34 IPC. The de facto complainant (1st respondent) and her husband (2nd respondent) opposed only in part; the 5th respondent (Vijaykumar) supported the quashing for the petitioner, while the 6th respondent (State) was represented by Public Prosecutor. The court records that the dispute between the 1st respondent and accused No.2 has been amicably settled, with the de facto complainant deciding not to proceed further against accused No.2. Investigating officers confirmed the settlement; no settlement with the other accused was effected. The judge invoked various Supreme Court rulings (Gian Singh; Narinder Singh; Laxmi Narayan) to affirm that a High Court can quash non‑compoundable offences under S.482 Cr.P.C where settlement exists if ends of justice or prevention of abuse of process requires it. The Kerala High Court, citing Sajeev and Others v. State of Kerala and Lovely Salhotra, held that quashing FIR/Final Report against one or more accused is permissible depending on facts. In light of the personal nature of the dispute and the absence of public interest in continuing the proceedings against accused No.2, the petition was allowed and the FIR against accused No.2 alone was quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

IPC Sections 468, 471, 406, 420, 34Cr.P.C. Section 482Cr.P.C. Section 320Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Section 9

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Ends of justice
  • Abuse of process of the court

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the dispute with the de facto complainant has been amicably settled; the offences are non‑compoundable but since the settlement addresses the core grievance and ends the contumacy, invoking powers under S.482 Cr.P.C to quash the FIR against accused No.2 is warranted in the interests of justice and to prevent abuse of process, especially given that the other accused were not parties to the settlement.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents oppose quashing against all or any accused on the ground that the offences are non‑compoundable and settlement with one accused alone should not override the statutory bar under S.320 Cr.P.C. They emphasize that the settlement is strictly between the 1st respondent and accused No.2 and that public interest and commensurate justice require continuing proceedings against the other accused; they rely on the necessity of balancing ends of justice with the integrity of procedure.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)PositiveCited as authority that High Courts can quash non‑compoundable offences under Cr.P.C.482 where settlement exists if ends of justice or avoidance of abuse of process justify it.
Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others(2014) 6 SCC 466PositiveSupports the principle that S.482 powers can be used to quash in settled matters despite non‑compoundable offences.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others(2019) 5 SCC 688PositiveAffirms extension of quashing power in settled cases for ends of justice.
Lovely Salhotra and Another v. State NCT of Delhi and Another(2018) 12 SCC 391Mentioned OnlyCited to discuss partial quashing; indicates opinions that quashing against some accused can be permissible with factual support, though in that case the High Court had refused partial quashing.
Sajeev & Another v. State of Kerala and Another(2022) 3 KHC 69PositiveKerala High Court decision endorsing quashing against some accused on ground of settlement based on facts.

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 Aravindakshan Nair v. Shalini Jayan 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 DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH** **FRIDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 21ST SRAVANA, 1944** **CRL.MC NO. 4296 OF 2022** **CRIME NO.139/2021 OF MARADU POLICE STATION, Ernakulam** ## **PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:** ARAVINDAKSHAN NAIR AGED 68 YEARS S/O. LATE GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, RESIDING AT SREEVALSAM, NEAR N.N. HOMES, KADAVANTHRA, COCHIN- , PIN - 682020 BY ADVS.TINU T.JOSEPH B.N.SHIVSANKAR ARCHANA HARIDAS K. HOSH P. DAS ## **RESPONDENTS/1ST ACCUSED:** 1 SHALINI JAYAN AGED 44 YEARS W/O. JAYAN T.V, RESIDING AT THENGINUNNEL, PANDIPARA P.O, IDUKKI, , PIN - 685909 2 JAYAN T.V AGED 52 YEARS S/O. VASU A, RESIDING AT THENGINUNNEL, PANDIPARA P.O, IDUKKI, PIN, PIN - 685909 3 S.I OF POLICE MARADU POLICE STATION, MARDAU P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682304 4 COMMISSIONER OF POLICE ERNAKULAM NEAR POLICE CLUB, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011 Crl.M.C.No.4296/2022 -:2:- 5 VIJAYKUMAR AGED 63 YEARS S/O. LATE KARUNAKARAN NAIR RESIDING AT JOLLY VILLA, PEOPLES LANE, THYKOODAM, VYTILLA, PIN - 682019 6 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 BY ADVS. Sarun Rajan MEGHA MUKUNDASWAR SRI. P.G. MANU, SR. PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.No.4296/2022 ## -:3:- ## **O R D E R** Dated this the 12[th] day of August, 2022 This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A3 FIR in Crime No.139/2021 of Maradu Police Station on the ground of settlement between the parties. 2. Altogether, there are two accused. The petitioner is the accused No.2. The accused No.1 is the 5[th] respondent herein. The 1[st] respondent is the de facto complainant. The 2[nd] respondent is the husband of the 1[st] respondent. 3. The offences alleged against the accused are punishable under Sections 468, 471, 406, 420 and 34 of IPC. 4. The respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5 entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn in by the defacto complainant is produced **.** 5. I have heard Sri.Tinu Joseph, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Sarun Rajan the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Smt. Megha Mukundaswar, the learned counsel for the 5[th] respondent and Sri. P.G. Manu, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Crl.M.C.No.4296/2022 -:4:- 6. The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit sworn in by the 1[st] respondent would show that the entire dispute between the accused No.2 with the de facto complainant has been amicably settled and the de facto complainant has decided not to proceed with the crime against the accused No.2 any further. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instruction, submits that the matter was inquired into through the investigating officer, and a statement of the de facto complainant was also recorded wherein he reported that the dispute with the accused No.2 was amicably settled. 7. The Apex Court in _**Gian Singh v. State of Punjab**_ [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)], _**Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others**_ [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and _**State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others**_ [(2019) 5 SCC 688] has held that the High Court invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C can quash criminal proceedings in relation to non-compoundable offence where the parties have settled the matter between themselves notwithstanding the bar under S.320 of Cr.P.C. if it is warranted in the given facts and circumstances of the case or to ensure ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Crl.M.C.No.4296/2022 ## -:5:- Court. 8. It is true that the settlement was arrived at between the 1[st] respondent(de facto complainant) and the accused No.2 alone, who is the petitioner. No settlement was arrived at with the remaining accused. Hence, the question is whether the FIR/Final Report against some of the accused alone could be quashed on the ground of settlement invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C. The Apex Court _**in Lovely Salhotra and Another v. State NCT**_ _**of Delhi and Another**_ [(2018) 12 SCC 391] quashed the proceedings against one of the accused alone, invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C. That was a case where the High Court refused to quash the proceeding holding that the FIR cannot be quashed in part. True, in the said case, the Apex Court had taken into account the facts of the case that no cognizable offence was made out. The Apex Court, on facts, also found that no offence was made out against the appellant/accused therein. However, the principle that could be deduced from the dictum laid down in the said decision is that it is not impermissible to quash the FIR _qua_ some of the accused alone, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. This Court in _**Sajeev & Another v. State of**_ Crl.M.C.No.4296/2022 ## -:6:- _**Kerala and Another**_ (2022 (3) KHC 69), has held that it is permissible to quash the proceedings against some of the accused alone on the ground of settlement depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. In these circumstances, I hold that it is permissible in law to quash the FIR or Final Report only against one or some of the accused on the ground of settlement, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C. 9. The learned counsel for the 1[st] respondent submitted that as the dispute between the petitioner and the 1[st] respondent is amicably settled and she has no objection whatsoever if the final report is quashed only against the petitioner. The dispute in the above case is purely personal in nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A3 as against the petitioner. The offences in question do not fall within the category of offences prohibited for compounding in terms of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in _**Gian Singh**_ (supra), _**Narinder Singh**_ (supra) and _**Laxmi Narayan**_ (supra). Crl.M.C.No.4296/2022 -:7:- For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that no purpose will be served in proceeding with the matter further. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A3 FIR in Crime No.139/2021 of Maradu Police Station as against the petitioner/accused No.2 alone hereby stand quashed. **Sd/-** **DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH** **JUDGE** **kp** Crl.M.C.No.4296/2022 ## -:8:- ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4296/2022** PETITIONER ANNEXURES - Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 11/07/2022 BETWEEN PETITIONER AND 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENT - Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 9 OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT - Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF FIR . NO 139/2021 OF MARADU POLICE STATION DATED 2/3/2021 - Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12/6/2022 FILED BY 1ST RESPONDENT - ANNEXURE A5 COPY OF LETTER GIVEN TO THE UNION BANK OF INDIA BY THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS DATED 22/9/2018 - ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 26/10.2018 - ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER GIVEN TO THE BAJAJ ALLIANCE DATED 28/11/2018 - ANNEXURE-A8 TRUE COPY OF THE BALANCE SHEET OF JJ INDUSTRIES AS ON 10/8/2018 - ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 30.6.22