High Court of KeralaSingle JudgePetition allowed; proceedings quashed.

ARUN KUMAR @ ARUN & OTHERS v. STATE OF KERALA & OTHERS

Case / Petition Number:CRL.MC NO. 6836 OF 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Ziyad Rahman A.A.
Judgment Date
2022-11-01
Court Decision / Holding
CRL.MC allowed; Annexure IV final report in Crime No.298/2019 of North Paravoor Police Station and all further proceedings in CP No.8/2022 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, North Paravoor, are quashed.
Final Disposition
Petition allowed; proceedings quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • ARUN KUMAR @ ARUN
  • MANU P.M. @ MANU MURALI
  • AJAYA KUMAR @ AJAY
  • NIKHIL
  • HAGEETH SAI
  • SAJITH
  • AKSHAY

Respondents

  • STATE OF KERALA
  • VISHNU
  • KRISHNA PRASAD
  • NIDHEESH

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • S.RAJEEV
  • • V.VINAY
  • • M.S.ANEER
  • • SARATH K.P.
  • • PRERITH PHILIP JOSEPH
  • • ANILKUMAR C.R.

Counsels for Respondents

  • • PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
  • • ANAND KALYANAKRISHNAN
  • • M.P. PRASHANTH – PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court criminal misc. case (CRL.MC No. 6836 of 2022) concerns quashing of proceedings arising from Crime No. 298/2019 of North Paravoor Police Station, which is now CP No. 8/2022 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, North Paravoor. The petitioners, seven accused (Arun Kumar @ Arun; Manu P.M. @ Manu Murali; Ajaya Kumar @ Ajay; Nikhil; Hageeth Sai; Sajith; Akshay), seek to invoke inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash all further proceedings on the ground that the dispute with the respondents has been settled and there are no subsisting grievances. The respondents 2–4 (injured) swear affidavits (Annexures I–III) attesting to the settlement and stating they have no objection to quashing. The Public Prosecutor confirms the settlement’s veracity after SHO verification, and the proceedings are private in nature. Although the offences include IPC sections 326 and 308, the victims claim the incident arose from a misunderstanding and there are no criminal antecedents. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another (2012(4) KLT 108), the court holds that quashing the proceedings would serve ends of justice given the private dispute and absence of public interest, and accordingly allows the CRL.MC, quashing Annexure IV final report and CP 8/2022 proceedings against the petitioners.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 143 IPCSection 147 IPCSection 144 IPCSection 148 IPCSection 341 IPCSection 323 IPCSection 506 IPCSection 326 IPCSection 294(b) IPCSection 308 IPCSection 149 IPCSection 482 Cr.P.C.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Inherent powers of the High Court under Cr.P.C. 482 to quash proceedings
  • Ends of justice doctrine
  • Gian Singh principle (settlement/private dispute can warrant quashing)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that the dispute is private and has been resolved amicably. Annexures I–III contain notarized affidavits of the injured parties stating there are no subsisting grievances and that they have no objection to quashing. The SHO has corroborated the settlement. Given the private nature of the dispute, lack of public interest, and feeble prospects of a successful prosecution (despite IPC sections 326 and 308 being invoked), it is appropriate for this Court to exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in CP 8/2022. The decision in Gian Singh is invoked to illustrate the permissibility of quashing when settlement exists and ends of justice require it.

Contentions of Respondents

The State/prosecution contends that the case involves serious offences and injuries. However, the injured parties and the State’s counsel confirm the settlement and its veracity after verification, and there is no subsisting grievance against the petitioners. Therefore, in light of the private nature of the dispute and the lack of ongoing grievance, quashing the proceedings is acceptable, provided ends of justice are served and there is no misuse of process.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another2012(4) KLT 108PositiveCited to justify exercise of the inherent powers under Cr.P.C. 482 to quash where the dispute is private and settled; ends of justice warrant discontinuance of prosecution.

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 KUMAR @ ARUN & OTHERS v. STATE OF KERALA & 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 MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 10TH KARTHIKA, 1944 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 6836 OF 2022 ``` ``` CRIME NO.298/2019 OF North Paravoor Police Station, Ernakulam CP 8/2022 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, NORTH PARAVOOR ``` ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:`** ``` 1ARUN KUMAR @ ARUN AGED 38 YEARS S/O THAMBI POLASSERI HOUSE, CHERIYAPALAM THURUTHU, PARAVOOR VILLAGE, PIN – 683512 2MANU P.M. @ MANU MURALI AGED 32 YEARS S/O MURALI, PULIYAKANDATHIL HOUSE, CHERIYAPALAM THURUTHU, PARAVOOR VILLAGE, PIN – 683512 3AJAYA KUMAR @ AJAY AGED 31 YEARS S/O THAMBI, POLASSERI HOUSE, CHERIYAPALAM THURUTHU, PARAVOOR VILLAGE, PIN – 683512 4NIKHIL AGED 33 YEARS S/O PRAKASHAN, VADAKKEPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHERIYAPALAM THURUTHU, PARAVOOR VILLAGE, PIN – 683512 5HAGEETH SAI AGED 29 YEARS S/O HARI HARAN, KAMBIVELIKKAKATHU VEEDU, CHERIYAPALAM THURUTHU, PARAVOOR VILLAGE, PIN – 683512 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 6836 OF 2022 ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` 6SAJITH AGED 30 YEARS S/O SAJEEVAN, THUNGIYIL HOUSE, CHERIYAPALAM THURUTHU, PARAVOOR VILLAGE, PIN – 683512 7AKSHAY AGED 25 YEARS S/O SALI, PULIYANKANDATHIL HOUSE, CHERIYAPALAM THURUTHU, PARAVOOR VILLAGE, PIN – 683512 BY ADVS. S.RAJEEV V.VINAY M.S.ANEER SARATH K.P. PRERITH PHILIP JOSEPH ANILKUMAR C.R. ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM – 682031 (CRIME NO 298/2019 OF NORTH PARAVOOR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM) 2VISHNU AGED 30 YEARS S/O BABY, KOZHATHIPARAMBIL, PERUMBADANNA KARA, PARAVOOR VILLAGE – 683512 3KRISHNA PRASAD AGED 26 YEARS S/O BALAKRISHNAN, VARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, DEVASYAM PADAM DESAM, VARAPPUZHA VILLAGE, PIN – 683517 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 6836 OF 2022 ``` ``` 3 ``` ``` 4NIDHEESH AGED 28 YEARS S/O MURALI, THALIKAPPURATHU HOUSE, PERUMBADANNA KARA, PARAVOOR VILLAGE – 683512 ``` ``` BY ADVS. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV ANAND KALYANAKRISHNAN ADV M.P. PRASHANTH – PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 6836 OF 2022 ``` ``` 4 ``` ## **`ORDER`** The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.298/2019 of North Paravoor Police Station which is now pending as C.P. No.8/2022 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, North Paravoor. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 144, 148, 341, 323, 506, 326, 294(b), 308 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case is that, on 10.03.2019 the accused persons formed into an unlawful assembly and assaulted the respondents 2 to 4, thereby causing injuries to them. Annexure IV is the final report submitted by the Police. This Crl.M.C. is filed for quashing all further proceedings pursuant to the same. 3. Heard Sri.S.Rajeev, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.M.P. Prashanth, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri.Anand Kalyanakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4. 4. The prayer for quashing the above proceedings is sought for by the petitioners on the ground that, the dispute ``` CRL.MC NO. 6836 OF 2022 ``` ``` 5 ``` between the parties has been settled and to substantiate the same, the injured persons have sworn Annexure I to Annexure III affidavits respectively. The aforesaid affidavits indicate that, the matter has been settled and the injured persons have no subsisting grievance against the petitioners herein. They also conveyed that they have no objection in quashing the proceedings against the petitioners herein. The learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4/injured persons also confirmed the same. The learned Public Prosecutor upon instructions submitted that the veracity of the settlement was verified by the Station House officer concerned and before the SHO also, the injured persons have reiterated that, they do not have any objection in quashing the proceedings as they have no subsisting grievance against the petitioners herein. 5. Going through the materials available on record, it is discernible that, the dispute is basically private in nature and on account of settlement arrived at between the parties, no purpose would be served if the proceedings against the petitioners herein were allowed to continue. In such circumstances, the chances of a ``` CRL.MC NO. 6836 OF 2022 ``` ``` 6 ``` successful prosecution are very bleak. Therefore, I am of the view that going by the decision in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [2012(4) KLT 108],** this is a fit case in which the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked. 6. It is true that some of the offences are under Sections 326 and 308 of Indian Penal Code. However, on perusal of the records it is seen that the victims have clearly stated that the incident has occurred on the basis of some misunderstanding between the parties and there was no intentional assault in this case. Moreover, no criminal antecedents of any accused persons were also brought to my notice. In such circumstances, taking into account the settlement arrived between the parties, I deem it appropriate to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and to quash proceedings against them. Accordingly, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure IV final report in Crime No.298/2019 of North Paravoor Police Police Station and all further proceedings in C.P. No.8/2022 pending ``` CRL.MC NO. 6836 OF 2022 ``` ``` 7 ``` before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, North Paravoor as against the petitioners are hereby quashed. ``` Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE ``` scs ``` CRL.MC NO. 6836 OF 2022 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6836/2022`** |`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`|`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`| |---|---| |`Annexure-I`|`NOTARIZED AFFIDAVITS SWORN BY THE`| ||`RESPONDENTS NO 2`| |`Annexure-II`|`NOTARIZED AFFIDAVITS SWORN BY THE`| ||`RESPONDENTS NO 3`| |`Annexure-III`|`NOTARIZED AFFIDAVITS SWORN BY THE`| ||`RESPONDENTS NO 4`| |`Annexure-IV`|`THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL`| ||`REPORT IN CRIME NO 298/2019 OF NORTH`| ||`PARAVOOR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM`|