Arun K alias Pichoootan; Prashanth P.V.; Arjun P.K.; Jithin Das alias Pathan v. State of Kerala and Joshin K.P.
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- C.S. Dias
- Judgment Date
- 2021-04-30
- Court Decision / Holding
- The petition is allowed. Annexure-A1 FIR and Annexure-A2 final report in Crime No.42/2016 of Chokli Police Station, Kannur and all further proceedings in S.C No.953/2017 of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Thalassery as against the petitioners are quashed.
- Final Disposition
- Quashed
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Arun K alias Pichoootan
- Prashanth P.V.
- Arjun P.K.
- Jithin Das alias Pathan
Respondents
- State of Kerala represented by the SHO, Chokly Police Station, through the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam - 682 031
- Joshin K.P. S/O.Balan, aged 31 years, Kizhekkepurayintavida House, Gurikkal Peedika, Aniyaram P.O.
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Shanavas Nalakath Randupurayil (Adv.)
Counsels for Respondents
- • Amir Suhail P.B.
- • Smt. Shyala S L (PP) for R1
Case Synopsis & Summary
This is a Kerala High Court judgment in a Criminal Misc Case (Crl.MC No.306 of 2021) concerning quashing of FIR No.42/2016 and the final report in Crime No.42/2016 (Chokli Police Station, Kannur) and the proceedings in S.C No.953/2017. The petition is filed under Section 482 CrPC by four accused (Arun K alias Pichoootan; Prashanth P.V.; Arjun P.K.; Jithin Das alias Pathan), challenging the investigation and the ongoing prosecution for offences under IPC Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 506, and 308 read with Section 149. Annexure-A1 is the FIR, Annexure-A2 the final report; Annexure-A4 is the affidavit of the second respondent stating no grievance and desire to withdraw. The 2nd respondent has signed Annexure-A4, which the IO has verified as genuine, and the State has no serious objection. The wound certificate shows only a contused abrasion on the right leg and arm; the medical officer rated the injury as simple. The court observes that the ingredients of Section 308 IPC are not made out and finds that only offences under sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, and 506 fall within Section 320 CrPC. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) and Prabatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat (2017), the court holds that in circumstances of amicable settlement and non-serious offences, ends of justice justify quashing. Accordingly, the petition is allowed, and Annexure-A1 FIR and Annexure-A2 final report, along with all further proceedings in S.C No.953/2017, are quashed against the petitioners.
Provisions of Law Cited
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Ends of justice
- Inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC
- Amicable settlement between parties justifies quashing non-serious offences to secure ends of justice
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners submit that an out-of-court settlement has been arrived at with the second respondent, rendering continuation of the proceedings superfluous. They contend that the injuries are minor, the settlement is genuine (Annexure-A4), and there is no public interest in continuing the prosecution. They urge quashing under the inherent powers of the High Court (Section 482 CrPC) in light of the settlement and non-serious nature of offences.
Contentions of Respondents
The second respondent has filed Annexure-A4 stating no grievance and no desire to pursue the matter; the Investigating Officer has verified the settlement; the State has no serious objection to quashing; the wound is minor and the offence under 308 IPC is not made out. The contention is that the ends of justice require consideration of the amicable settlement and non-seriousness of offences.
Cited Precedents (2)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gian Singh v. State of Punjab | 2012 (10) SCC 303 | Positive | Cited to support quashing where amicable settlement exists and the offence is not serious; ends of justice and exercise of inherent powers under 482 CrPC are warranted. |
| Prabatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur v. State of Gujarat and another | (2017) 9 SCC 641 | Positive | Cited for the principle that amicable settlement and non-serious offences may justify quashing to secure ends of justice. |
Diagnostic Tool
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 Arun K alias Pichoootan; Prashanth P.V.; Arjun P.K.; Jithin Das alias Pathan v. State of Kerala and Joshin K.P. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.