High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed

Arun K alias Pichoootan; Prashanth P.V.; Arjun P.K.; Jithin Das alias Pathan v. State of Kerala and Joshin K.P.

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No.306 OF 2021(G)

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

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal ProcedureIPC Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 506 and 308 read with Section 149Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

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 NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab2012 (10) SCC 303PositiveCited 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 641PositiveCited for the principle that amicable settlement and non-serious offences may justify quashing to secure ends of justice.

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 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.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 10TH VAISAKHA, 1943** ## **Crl.MC.No.306 OF 2021(G)** **AGAINST SC 953/2017 OF PRINCIPAL SESSIONS COURT,THALASSERY CRIME NO.42/2016 OF Chokli Police Station , Kannur** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS 1 TO 4:** - **1 ARUN K @ PICHOOTAN AGED 27 YEARS** - **S/O.KUNNIRAMAN, KARIYIL HOUSE, PALILANDI PEEDIKA NEAR SHONIMA CLUB, CHOKLY, KANNUR.** - **2 PRASHANTH P.V. AGED 35 YEARS** - **S/O.NANU, POOLERIVEETIL HOUSE, KEEZHIMADAM P.O., CHOKLY, NORTH MENEPRAM, KANNUR.** - **3 ARJUN P.K. AGED 24 YEARS** - **S/O.RAJEEVAN, PUTHIYA VEETIL THAZHE KUNIYIL HOUSE, ANIYARAM, CHOKLY, KANNUR.** - **4 JITHIN DAS @ PATHAN AGED 27 YEARS** - **S/O.MOHAN DAS, MADATHIL ARUKUNIYIL HOUSE, ANIYARAM, CHOKLY, KANNUR.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.SHANAVAS NALAKATH RANDUPURAYIL** ## **RESPONDENTS/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SHO, CHOKLY POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.** - **2 JOSHIN K.P. S/O.BALAN, AGED 31 YEARS, KIZHEKKEPURAYINTAVIDA HOUSE, GURIKKAL PEEDIKA, ANIYARAM P.O.** **R2 BY ADV. AMIR SUHAIL P.B SMT. SHYLAJA S L ,PP FOR R1** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.MC.No.306 OF 2021** **2** **C.S DIAS,J. --------------------------Crl.M.C No.306 of 2021 ----------------------------Dated this the 30[th] April, 2021.** ## **ORDER** The petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The petitioners are the accused No.s 1 to 4 in Crime No.42/2016 of the Chokli Police Station, Kannur, registered against them for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 506 and 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Annexure-A1 is the FIR and AnnexureA2 is the final report filed by the Police in the above crime. 3. The prosecution allegation is that on **Crl.MC.No.306 OF 2021** **3** 10.1.2016, on account of the political animosity and common intention, the accused Nos.1 to 5 unlawfully assembled and attacked the de facto complainant – the 2[nd] respondent with wooden sticks and made an attempt to commit culpable homicide. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1[st] respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent. Perused the records. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that with the intervention of well-wishers, the subject matter in dispute between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent has been settled out of court. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent submitted that the 2[nd] respondent has filed Annexure-A4 affidavit, inter alia, stating that he has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners **Crl.MC.No.306 OF 2021** **4** and is no longer desirous of pursuing the matter any further. The learned counsel vouched for the signature of the 2[nd] respondent in Annexure-A4 affidavit. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the Investigating Officer has ascertained the genuineness of the settlement and the the 2[nd] respondent has admitted the execution of Annexure-A4 affidavit. The State has no serious objection in the petition being allowed. 8. Although the Police have in Annexure-A2 final report incorporated the offence under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, on a perusal of Annexure-A3 wound certificate, it is seen that there is only a contused abrasion on the right leg and right arm of the 2[nd] respondent and the Medical Officer has certified the injury to be simple in nature. I have bestowed my anxious consideration to Annexure-A1 FIR and Annexure – A2 Final report and the materials **Crl.MC.No.306 OF 2021** **5** on record. On an analysis of the above-said materials, I find that the ingredients of Section 308 I.P.C have not been made out. In the said circumstances, I am of the definite opinion that only the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 506 are made out, which all fall within the fold of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal procedure. Therefore, I am satisfied that Annexure- A2 final report and all further proceedings can be quashed. Moreover, there is no public interest involved and the injured has stated that he has no objection in the proceeding being quashed. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab** [2012 (10) SCC 303] and **Prabatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another** [(2017) 9 SCC 641] has held that in facts and circumstances of a case and to secure the ends of **Crl.MC.No.306 OF 2021** **6** justice, where the High Court is satisfied that an amicable settlement has been arrived between the parties and the offence is not serious in nature involving mental depravity, criminal proceedings may be quashed. 11. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on being convinced that ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power of this Court, particularly since the alleged offences are not serious in nature, no public interest is involved, the chances of conviction is remote, the continuation of the proceeding would only be wastage of judicial time and the settlement would augur harmony, I am satisfied that the petition is to be allowed. In the result, the Crl.M.C is allowed. AnnexureA1 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 **Crl.MC.No.306 OF 2021** **7** Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Thalassery as against the petitioners are quashed. ma/30.04.2021 Sd/- **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** ## **/True copy/** **Crl.MC.No.306 OF 2021** **8** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A1 A CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR AND FIS IN CRIME NO.42/2016, DATED 10/01/2016 OF CHOKLI POLICE STATION, KANNUR.** **ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED IN CRIME NO.42/2016 CHOKLI POLICE STATION, KANNUR. ANNEXURE A3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE OF RESPONDENT NO.2. ANNEXURE A4 AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY RESPONDENT NO.2 REGARDING SETTLEMENT DATED 16/01/2021.**