High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2017-02-08Petition allowed; proceedings quashed (C.C.No.1...

A.V. Janaki; A.V. Dhanesh; K. Kunhikannan; T. V. Ratheesh v. State of Kerala and A. V. Raghavan

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No. 8972 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V.”],
provisions_of_law_sections([
Judgment Date: 2017-02-08
Court Decision / Holding: The court allowed the petition under Section 482 CrPC and quashed the proceedings. The final report and all related proceedings in C.C.No.1009/2014 before the JMFC Hosdurg were quashed. A correction later clarified the CC number as 1090/2014 per a subsequent order.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; proceedings quashed (C.C.No.1009/2014, later corrected to 1090/2014)

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

A.V. Janaki
A.V. Dhanesh
K. Kunhikanan
T.V. Ratheesh

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
A.V. Raghavan

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Suresh Kumar Kodoth
• Sanil Jose
• K.P. Antony Binu

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor (SMT. M.K. Pushpalatha)
• Adv. A.K. Madhavan Unni

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court criminal misc. case, under Section 482 CrPC, concerns quashing of a pending criminal proceeding arising from FIR No.150/2012 at Nileshwar Police Station (Kasargod), registered for offences under Sections 419, 420, 468, 470 read with 34 IPC. The accused petitioners claim ownership of land and allege a contested sale deed executed in favor of a third party with the help of co-accused; the de facto complainant’s sister’s residence in an old age home and the eventual filing of a final report in JMFC Hosdurg led to CC No.1009/2014. The petition argues that a settlement between near relatives renders continued prosecution futile and an abuse of process, and thus merits quashing under extraordinary powers. The Public Prosecutor expresses reservations, but notes the petitioners lack criminal antecedents and the complainant’s statement records no further grievance. The court relies on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, endorsing that in appropriate cases amicable settlements can justify ending criminal proceedings to secure ends of justice and prevent abuse of process. Consequently, it quashes the proceedings and the final report, with a correction noted later regarding the case number.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)Sections 419, 420, 468, 470 read with 34 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ends of justice (doctrine)
Abuse of process of law (doctrine)
Amicable settlement/quash on compromise doctrine
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that the parties are near relatives and have arrived at an amicable settlement resolving the dispute over the land, making continuation of the criminal case unjust and an abuse of process. They relied on established jurisprudence (Gian Singh and Narinder Singh) that the High Court may quash criminal proceedings to secure ends of justice where a settlement exists and continuing prosecution would undermine peace and welfare; the accused have no criminal antecedents; the complainant has stated he has no further grievance, thus reducing the public interest in pursuing the case.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents acknowledged the amicable settlement but urged caution, clarifying that while the petitioners may lack serious criminal history, the court should weigh public interest and gravity of the allegations. They highlighted the complainant’s recorded statement indicating no further grievance but reserved judgment on whether quashing would negate legitimate prosecution in a case involving transfer of land deeds. Overall, they concede the settlement but advocate a restrained approach, ensuring ends of justice without compromising the integrity of criminal process.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	(2012) 10 SCC 303	Positive	The Apex Court held that in appropriate cases, amicable settlements between victim and wrongdoer may justify quashing criminal proceedings to secure ends of justice and prevent abuse of process.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	(2014) 6 SCC 466	Positive	The Court reiterated that when parties settle, the guiding factors are ends of justice and preventing abuse of process, and the High Court may quash accordingly.

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 A.V. Janaki; A.V. Dhanesh; K. Kunhikannan; T. V. Ratheesh v. State of Kerala and A. V. Raghavan 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** ## **WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/19TH MAGHA, 1938** ## **Crl.MC.No. 8972 of 2016 () ---------------------------** ## ***CC 1009/2014 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, HOSDRUG.(CORRECTED)** **CRIME NO.150/2012 OF NILESHWAR POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD.** ## **.......** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 4:** **----------------------------** **1. A.V.JANAKI, AGED 59 YEARS, W/O.AMBU, KARUTHAGATE, PALLIKERA, PEROL VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **2. A V DHANESH, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.AMBU, KARUTHAGATE, PALLIKERA, PEROL VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **3. K KUNHIKANNAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.KANNAN, MAVILA VEEDU, KAKKOL, CHAYYOTH, KARINTHALAM VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **4. T V RATHEESH, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.ANANDAN TV, THANMARAVALAPPIL, UDAYAGIRI, KADAVOOR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH SRI.SANIL JOSE SRI.K.P.ANTONY BINU** **RESPONDENT(S):** - **--------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.** **--2--** **--2--** **Crl.MC.No. 8972 of 2016 ()** **---------------------------** **2. A.V.RAGHAVAN, AGED 75 YEARS, S/O.KUNHIKANNAN, RESIDING AT THATTACHERY, NILESHWAR, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671 315.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA R2 BY ADV. SRI.A.K.MADHAVAN UNNI** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: mbr/** ***THE LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER “C.C.NO.1009/2014’ OCCURS IN THE CRL.M.C. IS CORRECTED AND SUBSTITUTED AS “C.C.NO.1090/14” AS PER ORDER DATED 30.5.2017 IN CRL.M.A.3533/2017.** **mbr/** **ASSISTANT REGISTRAR** ## **Crl.MC.No. 8972 of 2016 () ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:** |**ANNEXURE A1**|**:**|**CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT**| |---|---|---| |||**DATED 18/03/2012.**| |**ANNEXURE A2**|**:**|**CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR NO 150/2012 OF**| |||**NILEShWAR POLICE STATION.**| |**ANNEXURE A3**|**:**|**CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN**| |||**CRIME NO 150/2012 OF NILESHWAR POLICE**| |||**STATION.**| |**ANNEXURE A4**|**:**|**AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT**| |||**ON 10-12-2016.**| ## **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL.** ## **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** ## **mbr/** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.8972 of 2016** **----------------------------------------Dated this the 8th day of February, 2017** ## **O R D E R** - 1.This petition is filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' ) with a prayer to invoke the extraordinary inherent powers and to quash the pending criminal proceedings. - 2.On the basis of the FIR lodged by the 2[nd] respondent herein Crime No.150 of 2012 of Nileshwar Police Station was registered against the petitioners and investigation was taken up for offences punishable under sections 419, 420, 468, 470 read with 34 of the IPC and on its conclusion final report was laid before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Hosdurg, where the same is pending as C.C.No.1009 of 2014. - 3.The prosecution allegation is that the 1[st] petitioner Crl.M.C.8972/2016 2 - claiming to be the owner of the land having an extent of 80 cents in Re Survey No.133/A36 in Karinthalam Village, transferred the same by executing a sale deed in favour of a lady by name Pathumma with the active assistance of accused Nos. 2 to 4. According to the prosecution, the property was actually owned by the sister of the de facto complainant, who was staying in a old age home. - 4.The proceedings are sought to be quashed on the basis of a settlement arrived at between the parties. The learned counsel appearing for the parties submits that the parties are near relatives and in view of the resolution of the disputes, the proceedings before the criminal court is a futile exercise. Much reliance is placed on the affidavit sworn to by the 2[nd] respondent to buttress their submissions. - 5.The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions expresses his reservations in the matter. However it is submitted that the petitioners are not persons with Crl.M.C.8972/2016 3 criminal antecedents. It is also submitted that the statement of the de facto complainant has been recorded and he has stated in unequivocal terms that he has no further grievance. 6.I have considered the submissions. - 7.The position with regard to quashing of proceedings on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties is by now well settled. In **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab** [(2012) 10 SCC 303] Apex Court has laid down that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. It was observed as follows : _“61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above_ Crl.M.C.8972/2016 4 _question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”_ 8.The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court ## in **Narinder singh v. State of Punjab** (2014) 6 SCC 466, the pertinent observations which are as under: _XXXXXXXXXXX_ _29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:_ _(i) ends of justice, or_ _(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives._ _xxxxxxx_ _xxxxxxx_ 9.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. It is Crl.M.C.8972/2016 5 felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and secure the ends of justice. Even otherwise, persisting with the prosecution would be nothing but a waste of time as the prospects of conviction would be bleak. 10.Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court will be well justified in invoking its extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings. In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A3 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.C.No.1009 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Hosdurg are quashed. **Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE** vps “ **C.C.No.1009 of 2014** ” occurring in the 8[th] line of 6 Crl.M.C.8972/2016 paragraph 2 at page 1 and 3[rd] line of the operative portion at page 5 of the final order dated 08/02/2017 in Crl.M.C. No.8972/2016 is corrected and substituted as “ **C.C. No.1090 of 2014'** as per order dated 30.5.2017 in Crl.M.A. No.3533/2017 in Crl.M.C. No.8972/2016. Sd/Registrar (Judicial)