High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-10-06Petition allowed; quashing of FIR No. 699/2015 ...

Ashok and Others v. State of Kerala and Samnas V.P.

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C.No. 1292 of 2016

Neutral Citation:/null

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J
Judgment Date: 2016-10-06
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is allowed; the High Court quashes Annexure-A FIR in Crime No. 699/2015 and all proceedings arising therefrom under Section 482 CrPC.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; quashing of FIR No. 699/2015 and related proceedings.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

ASHOK
ARJUN RAVI
RUNSO FRANIS
SRAVAN S.KUMAR
MAYOOKH E.P.
AMARNATH T.V.
ARITH S.MOHANAN
SHAHRUKH K.V.
NAREED NAZEER
KIRAN K.R.

Respondents

STATE OF KERALA
SAMNAS V.P.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. N. RAJESH (PALAKKAD)

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri K. ANAND
• Sri. T.R. RENJITH

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 CrPC before the High Court of Kerala, filed by ten accused (Ashok; Arjun Ravi; Runso Franis; Sravan S.Kumar; Mayookh E.P.; Amarnath T.V.; Arith S.Mohanam; Shahrukh K.V.; Nareed Nazeer; Kiran K.R.) in connection with Hemambika Nagar Police Station Crime No. 699/2015 at Palakkad. The petition seeks to quash the FIR and all proceedings on the basis of a settlement between the parties and the lack of a grave or serious offence, which allegedly involved wrongful restraint and assault during clashes between rival NSS Engineering College student groups on 17-10-2015. Respondent 2, Samnas V.P., has filed an affidavit absolving the petitioners and expressing no desire to continue the proceedings. The Public Prosecutor initially expresses reservations, arguing that Section 482 powers are not to be exercised lightly; however, counsel for the petitioners relies on key Supreme Court precedents—Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab—stating that quashing can be justified where there is a settlement and the offence has civil flavour, with the caveat that the power does not extend to crimes affecting society as a whole. The Court considers the gravity of the offence, the settlement, and the remote likelihood of conviction, ultimately exercising its extraordinary power under 482 to quash the proceedings. The FIR was quashed, ending the case. The judge emphasizes civil-flavour cases and settlements as pivotal.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal ProcedureSection 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Quashing under Section 482 CrPC can be based on settlement/compromise between private parties.
High Court's power under Section 482 CrPC is not limited to Section 320 CrPC; it can quash in matters with civil flavour.
Criminal cases having overwhelming civil flavour may be quashed where settlement exists.
Guidelines from Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab recognizing settlements and civil-flavour considerations; Rajesh Kamath J. v. Mohana Kurup as a recent reference.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that the on-record dispute, aggravated by a campus clash, has been resolved by settlement with the injured party, removing the likelihood of conviction and sparing both sides from oppression and prejudice. Citing Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, they argue that High Courts possess inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash where settlements exist and the offence has a civil flavour. They emphasize that the offence in Crime No. 699/2015 is not grave or severe, and the respondent has exonerated them; thus continuing proceedings would amount to unnecessary harassment for private parties despite the lack of a societal impact. The petition requests quashing of the FIR and all related proceedings. The argument also notes that Sec. 482 grants broad powers to prevent abuse of process and overreach by the state where justice would be served by compounding or ending a matter of private dispute.

Contentions of Respondents

The State/public prosecutor acknowledges the general breadth of Section 482 but warns against broad, unfettered invocation, especially in cases with social impact or where public interest may be affected. While not opposing the fact of a settlement, the respondent emphasizes caution in quashing if it would undermine public order or signal impunity. They point out that the power under 482 is not unlimited and should be exercised only when the case involves a civil flavour or private dispute with no disproportionate harm to public interest. The respondent relies on the need to maintain trust in criminal justice administration while acknowledging Gian Singh’s framework. Ultimately, the court’s exercise of discretion must balance the settlement and absence of grave offences against the public interest and the gravity of the alleged acts.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another	2012 (10) SCC 303	Positive	Announces that 482 CrPC quashing may be based on settlements between private parties and can extend beyond Section 320; applies to civil-flavour cases.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	2014 (6) SCC 466	Positive	Provides guidelines relevant to quashing based on private settlements and civil-flavour considerations.
Rajesh Kamath J. and Others v. Mohana Kurup and Others	AIR 2016 SC 2452	Mentioned Only	Cited as a recent reference; not central to the Court's reasoning in the instant case.

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 Ashok and Others v. State of Kerala and Samnas V.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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/14TH ASWINA, 1938 Crl.MC.No. 1292 of 2016 () --------------------------CRIME NO. 699/2015 OF HEMAMBIKA NAGAR POLICE STATION , PALAKKAD** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED: ---------------------** **1. ASHOK, 22 YEARS S/O.VIJAYARAGAVAN, ARIYOOR PO, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD.** **2. ARJUN RAVI, 21 YEARS S/O.RAVEENDRANATHAN M.N., SOPANAM, PALAKKAD.** **3. RUNSO FRANIS, 21 YEARS S/O.FRANCIS, ARYAPALLY HOUSE, ARTTUTHARA PO, NABATGUVADY, WAYANADU.** **4. SRAVAN S.KUMAR, 22 YEARS S/O.SREEKUMAR, SWATHI HOUSE, KODUR PO, MALAPPURAM.** **5. MAYOOKH E.P., 20 YEARS S/O.MADHUSOODANAN O.M., MANRIMA, POYYUS, MAYYIL PO, KANNUR.** **6. AMARNATH T.V., 22 YEARS S/O.RAGHAVAN M. CHANDRATH, 34 PUNNAD, PUNNAD PO, KANNUR.** **7. ARITH S.MOHANAN, 22 YEARS S/O.MOHANAN, SEETHUMUDUTHIL HOUSE, THIRURKKAD PO, MALAPPURAM.** **CONTD...** **:2:** **8. SHAHRUKH K.V., 22 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMED AJMAK, KATTILRUTHIL HOUSE, THARAPPAKANDI, AREEKKOD, MALAPPURAM.** **9. NAREED NAZEER, 22 YEARS S/O.ABDUL NAZEER, GULSHAN, 30/402, CHERAYOOR PO, KOZHIKODE.** **10. KIRAN K.R., 20 YEARS** - **S/O.RAVEENDRAN K., KUNNAMPILLY HOUSE, NEDUPUZHA PO, PANAMOKKU, THRISSUR.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.N.RAJESH (PALAKKAD)** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** **------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA** - **REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.** **2. SAMNAS V.P., 22 YEARS** - **S/O.USAMAN V.P., VAKYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PERINTHATHIRI PO, MALAPPURAM.** **R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND** **R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.T.R.RENJITH** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-10-2016, ALONG WITH CRMC. 1242/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **CONTD...** ## **:3:** **Crl.MC.No. 1292 of 2016 () ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-----------------------** **ANNEXURE A : A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN HEMEMBIKA NAGAR, POLICE SATION, PALAKKAD REGISTERED CRIME NO.699/2015** **ANNEXURE B : AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL** **-----------------------** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **SKS** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 1292 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## Dated 6[th] October, 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **ORDER** - 1.This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code'). - 2.On 17.10.2015 at 10.30 pm, rival student groups of the NSS Engineering College, Palakkad clashed with each other, which led to the registration of two crimes. The petitioners herein are the accused in Crime No. 700 of 2015 of the Hemambika Police Station. At the instance of one among the petitioners, Crime No. 699 of 2015 of Hemambika Police Station was registered against the other group of students. - 3.The prosecution allegation in the instant case is that, on - 18.10.2015 at 7 pm, the petitioners had wrongfully restrained the 2[nd] respondent and assaulted him with weapons causing injuries. 2 Crl.M.C. No. 1292 of 2016 - 4.The party respondent has entered appearance through his counsel and has filed Annexure-B affidavit in which it is asserted that he has absolved the petitioners and does not desire or wish that the criminal proceedings against the petitioners should continue. - 5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, this Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings. - 6.The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions has expressed his reservations in the matter of quashing the proceedings on the basis of settlement. It is submitted that the invocation of powers under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is not warranted. However, it is submitted that no other cases are reported against the petitioners. - 7.In **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another** [2012 - (10)SCC 303], the Apex Court has crystalised the position Crl.M.C. No. 1292 of 2016 3 in respect of the powers vested in the High Court under S.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to quash criminal proceedings. It was held that the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is not limited to quashing proceedings within the ambit and scope of Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The three - Judge Bench in the above case, clearly expounded, that quashing of criminal proceedings under S.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, could also be based on settlements between private parties, and could also on a compromise between the offender and the victim. Only that, the above power did not extend to crimes against the society. It is also relevant to mention, that the jurisdiction vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for quashing criminal proceedings, was held to be exercisable in criminal cases having an overwhelming and predominatingly civil flavour, particularly offences arising from commercial, financial, Crl.M.C. No. 1292 of 2016 4 mercantile, civil, partnership, or such like transactions. Further, guidelines were issued by the Apex Court in **Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab** [2014 (6) SCC 466] and recently in **Rajesh Kamath J. and Others v. Mohana Kurup and Others** [AIR 2016 SC 2452]. - 8.I have considered the rival submissions and I have gone through the materials on record. The offence committed by the petitioners cannot be said to be grave and serious having ingredients of extreme mental depravity. It also does not appear that the offence in this case will have a serious impact on the society. More over, when the respondent has settled the matter, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and the continuation of the criminal case against the petitioners would be a futile exercise. It would also put the petitioners and the respondent to great oppression and prejudice - 9.Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court will be well justified in Crl.M.C. No. 1292 of 2016 5 invoking its extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings. In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A FIR in crime No. 699 of 2015 of the Hemambika Nagar Police Station, Palakkad and all proceedings pursuant thereto are quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE** SKS //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE