High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-12-18Conviction and sentence set aside; revision pet...

Asokan s/o Thankappan v. State of Kerala and Vijayamma

Case / Petition Number:CRL.REV.PET NO. 1464 OF 2011

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2023-12-18
Court Decision / Holding: Conviction and sentence set aside; revision petition allowed; all further proceedings in Crime No.81/2006 of the Venjaramoodu Police Station quashed; bail bonds cancelled; any fines remitted shall be refunded to the petitioner in accordance with law.
Final Disposition: Conviction and sentence set aside; revision petition allowed; proceedings quashed; bail bonds cancelled; fines remitted, if any, to be refunded.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Asokan s/o Thankappan

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Vijayamma

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Suman Chakravarthy
• Smt. K. R. Rija

Counsels for Respondents

• Shajin S. Hameed

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a criminal revision petition filed by the revision petitioner, Asokan, challenging the conviction under Sections 354 and 451 IPC and the sentence awarded by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Attingal, which was upheld in the Fast Track (Adhoc)-IV court by confirming the conviction but reducing the sentence in the appeal. The prosecution alleged that on 9 February 2006 the accused trespassed into PW1’s house and attempted to outrage her modesty by pulling her garments, after which he allegedly closed her mouth when she raised an alarm. The Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to one year’s simple imprisonment for both offences and a fine of Rs. 5,000, with default imprisonment for six months. In Criminal Appeal No. 876/2009, the Appellate Court confirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence to six months for each offence, maintaining the fine and default sentence. The petitioner contends that, in light of out-of-court settlement with the second respondent (Vijayamma), and relying on the jurisprudence under Section 482 CrPC (notably Soban and Gian Singh), the High Court should quash the conviction and set aside the sentence and proceedings. The State indicates no objection to disposal by settlement. The High Court, invoking its plenary powers under 482 CrPC and following the cited precedents, allowed the revision, set aside the conviction and sentence, quashed further proceedings, cancelled bail bonds, and ordered refund of any remitted fines to the petitioner, aiming to preserve harmony and ends of justice.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 354 IPCSection 451 IPCSection 313 CrPCSection 482 CrPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ends of justice
Abuse of the process of the Court
Plenary powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab – guidelines on quashing non-compoundable offences
Soban v. State of Kerala – settlement can justify quashing under 482 CrPC in appropriate cases

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The revision petition argues for quashing the conviction and sentence under sections 354 and 451 IPC in light of an out-of-court settlement between the parties. It relies on the plenary powers under Section 482 CrPC and the jurisprudence established in Gian Singh and Soban, arguing that ends of justice requires quashing non-compoundable offences where the dispute has been settled and continued prosecution would be an abuse of process.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents emphasise the factual background and the genuine out-of-court settlement between the petitioner and the second respondent, with the State indicating no objection to disposal by settlement. They rely on the settled principles under Gian Singh and related authorities to argue that the court may exercise 482 CrPC powers to avoid unnecessary litigation and to secure ends of justice when appropriate.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Soban v. State of Kerala	2021 (3) KLT Online 1179	Positive	Cited as a controlling authority for exercising 482 CrPC to quash proceedings in light of a genuine settlement and ends of justice.
Joshi v. State of Haryana	2003 (2) KLT 1062	Positive	Referenced for its role in the development of the settlement-quashing jurisprudence alongside Gian Singh.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)	Positive	Cited for the guidelines on which offences can be quashed and the limits of quashing under 482 CrPC.
Bitan Sengupta Gupta & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr.	2018 KHC 7390	Mentioned Only	Mentioned as part of the authority discussion but not directly applied to the decision.
Renjith v. State of Kerala	2019 (4) KLT SN41 (C.) No.56	Mentioned Only	Mentioned in the context of related decisions from this Court.

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 Asokan s/o Thankappan v. State of Kerala and Vijayamma 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** **MONDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945 CRL.REV.PET NO. 1464 OF 2011** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CRA 876/2009 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)-IV, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **CC 620/2006 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,ATTINGAL REVISION PETITIONER/S:** ASOKAN, S/OTHANKAPPAN, PONKUNNU PUTHEN VEEDU,KONCHIRA,VEMBAYAM,MANICKAL,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY SMT.K.R.RIJA ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2 VIJAYAMMA. P AGED 78 YEARS D/O. VIKRAMAN PILLAI, GIRIJA BHAVAN, MENAMKOTTUKONAM, KUTHIRAKKULAM P.O., VEMBAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. *IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL R2 AS PER ORDER DATED 29.11.2023 IN CRL.M.A.1/2023 BY HON'BLE CSD(J). BY ADV SHAJIN S.HAMEED ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SR PP SMT PUSHPALATHA M K THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.REV.PET NO. 1464 OF 2011 2 ## **ORDER** The revision petition is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.876/2009 of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Tract (Adhoc) No.IV, Thiruvananthapuram (Appellate Court) confirming the conviction, but modifying the sentence in C.C.No.620/2006 of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Attingal (Trial Court) finding the revision petitioner guilty for the offence under Sections 354 and 451 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, IPC). ## Prosecution case in brief: 2. The prosecution case is that, on 09.02.2006 at about 3 p.m., the revision petitioner/accused with an intention to outrage the modesty of PW1 had trespassed in to her house and pulled her garments. When PW1 raised an alarm, the accused closed her mouth. Hence, the accused has committed the above offence. ## Trial Court judgment 3. On receipt of summons from the Trial Court, the CRL.REV.PET NO. 1464 OF 2011 3 accused appeared and denied the substance of accusation read over to him. In the trial , the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 5 and marked Exts.P1 to P4 in evidence. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the questioning under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Code). 4. The Trial Court, after analysing the materials placed on record, found the accused guilty for the above offences and convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for both the offences, and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 451 of the IPC and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. 5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.876/2009 before the Appellate Court. 6. The Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the materials placed on record, by the impugned judgment, confirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence by reducing it to simple imprisonment for a period of six CRL.REV.PET NO. 1464 OF 2011 4 months for both the offences, but maintained the sentence of fine with the default sentence. 7. It is assailing the said judgment; the revision petition is filed. 8. Heard; Sri.Suman Chakravarthy, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.Pushpalatha, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1[st] respondent and Sri.Shajin S.Hameed, the learned Counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent. 9. When the revision petition was taken up for consideration on 29.11.2023, the learned counsel appearing on both sides had submitted that the 2[nd] respondent has filed an affidavit dated 28.10.2023, stating that the subject matter in dispute between her and the revision petitioner has been settled out of court and she has no objection in the conviction and sentence passed by the courts below being set aside. 10. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions submitted, that the jurisdictional police has enquired and found that the settlement arrived between the parties is CRL.REV.PET NO. 1464 OF 2011 5 genuine and bonafide, and a signed statement of the 2[nd] respondent was recorded. Therefore, the State has no objection in the revision petition being allowed by way of settlement. 11. This **Court in Soban v. State of Kerala** [2021 (3) KLT Online 1179], after referring to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Joshi v. State of Haryana** [2003 (2) KLT 1062]; **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab** [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)]; **Bitan Sengupta Gupta & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr.** [2018 KHC 7390] and decisions of this Court in **Renjith v. State of Kerala** [2019 (4) KLT SN41 (C.) No.56], has held that if the requirements of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. are satisfied, in the sense that it is necessary to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice, criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences can be quashed, notwithstanding the fact the order of conviction has been passed against the accused, provided the offence does not fall within the category of offences prohibited to be quashed as per the guidelines CRL.REV.PET NO. 1464 OF 2011 6 laid down in **Gian Singh** (Supra) and the other decisions on the point. 12. I am in total agreement with the principles laid down in **Soban** (Supra). 13. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, after reading the affidavit of the 2[nd] respondent and following the law laid down by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the afore-cited precedents, I am inclined to invoke the plenary powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the courts below, which will only augur the relationship and harmony between the parties and ultimately meet the ends of justice. In the result: - (i) The conviction and sentence passed by the Court of Sessions, Thiruvananthapuram in Criminal Appeal No.876/2009 and the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Attingal in C.C.No.620/2006 are set aside, and the revision petitioner is set at CRL.REV.PET NO. 1464 OF 2011 7 liberty. - (ii) All further proceedings in Crime No.81/2006 of the Venjaramoodu police station are quashed. - (iii) The bail bonds executed by the revision petitioner/accused and his sureties are hereby cancelled. - (iv) The fine amount, if any, remitted by the revision petitioner, pursuant to the orders passed by this Court and the Appellate Court, shall be refunded to him in accordance with law. Sd/- ## **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** rkc/18.12.23 CRL.REV.PET NO. 1464 OF 2011 8 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 1464/2011** RESPONDENT ANNEXURES Annexure-R2(a) AFFIDAVIT DULY EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER/CW1.