High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeCrl.M.C Nos.7919/2018 & 8218/2018 disposed of; ...

Babu Antonry and Davis Antony v. State of Kerala and Rosy

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C. Nos.7919/2018 & 8218/2018

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • ALEXANDER THOMAS
Judgment Date
2019-05-21
Court Decision / Holding
The Court quashes the final reports in Crime No.224/2017 (CC No.862/2018) and Crime No.362/2018 (CC No.964/2018) and all further proceedings arising therefrom under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. The petitions are disposed of, and certified copies of the order are to be provided to the IO and the concerned court. The AG's office is to forward the order for necessary information.
Final Disposition
Crl.M.C Nos.7919/2018 & 8218/2018 disposed of; quashed the final reports and all further proceedings under Sec 482 Cr.P.C.; petitions finally disposed of.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Babu Antonry
  • Davis Antony

Respondents

  • State of Kerala
  • Rosy

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri. K. B. Pradeep
  • • Smt. N.G. Sindhu

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri. Mansoor B.H.
  • • Sri. Navaneeth N. Nath

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court judgment deals with two Criminal Miscellaneous Cases (Crl.M.C. Nos. 7919/2018 and 8218/2018) filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by petitioners Babu Antonry and Davis Antony, challenging two connected criminal prosecutions arising from Crime Nos. 224/2017 (Koratty Police) and 362/2018, respectively, now pending as CC Nos. 862/2018 and 964/2018 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chalakudy. The petitioners contend that the entire disputes with the defacto complainant have been settled and that continuing prosecutions would serve no purpose. The two respondents—State of Kerala (represented by the Public Prosecutor) and Rosy (the defacto complainant)—sworn affidavits (Annx. R1) to the effect that the disputes have been fully settled and that they have no objection to quashing the proceedings. The court places reliance on Supreme Court precedents Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab, holding that in appropriate cases, including non-compoundable offences, High Courts can exercise inherent powers to quash where there is a genuine settlement and continued prosecution would be futile. After reviewing the materials, the court concludes a real settlement exists, and continuing prosecution would waste judicial time. Accordingly, it directs that the impugned final reports and all further proceedings be quashed under Sec.482 Cr.P.C.

Provisions of Law Cited

Sec.482 Cr.P.C.Sec.451 IPCSec.341 IPCSec.354 IPCSec.506 IPCSec.294(b) IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Gian Singh v. State of Punjab
  • Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners sought quashing of the pending criminal proceedings under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. on the ground of a settled dispute with the defacto complainant, supported by affidavits (Annx. R1) asserting that the parties have resolved all grievances and that there is no objection to quashing the cases. They relied on Supreme Court precedents Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, which permit quashing even in certain non-compoundable offences where a genuine settlement exists and further prosecution would be futile. The court’s perusal of the materials and the affidavits led to the conclusion that there is a real settlement and to prevent waste of judicial time, quashing is appropriate.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents, including the State through the Public Prosecutor and Rosy, affirm the settlement and do not object to quashing, aligning with the settled position that where disputes are resolved and continued prosecution serves no purpose, the High Court can exercise its inherent powers to quash proceedings under Sec.482 Cr.P.C., as supported by Gian Singh and Narinder Singh.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 160PositiveThe court uses Gian Singh to support exercise of the inherent power to quash where a genuine settlement exists and continuation would serve no purpose.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr(2014) 6 SCC 466PositiveThe court cites Narinder Singh to reinforce the principle that settlements can justify quashing under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. in appropriate cases.

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 Babu Antonry and Davis Antony v. State of Kerala and Rosy 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 ALEXANDER THOMAS** **TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2019 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1941** **Crl.MC.No. 7919 of 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 862/2018 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, CHALAKUDY** **CRIME NO. 224/2017 OF Koraty Police Station , Thrissur** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **1 BABU ANTONRY AGED 54 YEARS RESIDING AT PATHADAN HOUSE, CHALAKKUDY P.O, THRISSUR 680307. 2 DAVIS ANTONY AGED 54 YEARS S/O. ANTONY, RESIDING AT PULLENVEETTIL, CHALAKKUDY P.O, THRISSUR 680 307** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.B.PRADEEP SMT.N.G.SINDHU** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHALAKKUDI POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA PIN- 682031 2 ROSY W/O. LONAPPAN @ YOHANNAN, PALATTIL HOUSE, MUKUNDAPURAM P.O, MELOOR, PALAMURI 680 734. BY ADVS. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H. SRI.NAVANEETH.N.NATH OTHER PRESENT: SRI.T.R.RENJITH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.05.2019, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.8218/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Crl.M.C. Nos.7919 & 8218 of 2018 2 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2019 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1941** ## **Crl.MC.No. 8218 of 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 964/2018 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, CHALAKUDY** **CRIME NO. 362/2018 OF Koraty Police Station , Thrissur** ## **PETITIONER/S:** |**1**|**BABU ANTONY**| |---|---| ||**AGED 54 YEARS**| ||**RESIDING AT PATHADAN HOUSE,**| ||**CHALAKKUDY P.O.,**| ||**THRISSUR 680 307**| |**2**|**DAVIS ANTONY**| ||**AGED 54 YEARS**| ||**S/O. ANTONY RESIDING AT PULLENVEETTIL,**| ||**CHALAKKUDY P.O.,**| ||**THRISSUR 680 307**| ||**BY ADVS.**| ||**SRI.K.B.PRADEEP**| ||**SMT.N.G.SINDHU**| ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE**| ||**CHALAKKUDI POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC**| ||**PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT KERALA**| |**2**|**ROSY**| ||**W/O. LONAPPAN @ YOHANNAN, PALATTIL HOUSE,**| ||**MUKUNDAPURAM P.O,**| ||**MELOOR, PALAMURI**| Crl.M.C. Nos.7919 & 8218 of 2018 3 **BY ADVS. SRI.NAVANEETH.N.NATH SRI.P.S.SARVANATH** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.05.2019, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.7919/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Crl.M.C. Nos.7919 & 8218 of 2018 4 ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.** **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C. Nos.7919 & 8218 of 2018** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** Dated this the 21[st] day of May, 2019 ## **O R D E R** The prayers made in these two Crl.M.Cs filed under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C invoking the inherent powers conferred on this Court as per that provision is to quash respective impugned criminal proceedings in these cases which essentially arise out of two crimes which are said to be case and counter case and the prayer for quashment in both these cases is made on the basis of settlement arrived at between the accused persons and defacto complainant. Crl.M.C.No.7919/2018 arises out of Anx-2 FIR in Crime No.224/2017 of Koratty Police Station, Thrissur Rural, which has been registered for offence punishable under Secs.451, 341, 354, 506 & 294(b) of the I.P.C, in which the petitioners are the accused therein and the 2[nd] respondent herein is the defacto complainant therein in relation to that crime. Crl.M.C.No.8218/2018 arises out of counter case viz., Anx-3 FIR in Crime No.362/2018 of Koratty Police Station, Thrissur Rural, which has been registered for offence punishable under Sec.506 of the I.P.C, in which Crl.M.C. Nos.7919 & 8218 of 2018 5 the petitioners are the accused therein and the 2[nd] respondent herein is the defacto complainant therein in relation to that crime. The 2[nd] respondent in Crl.M.C.No.7919/2018 has sworn to affidavit produced as Annx.-R1 in that Crl.M.C whereby she has stated that the entire disputes against the petitioner-accused, have been fully settled and that she has no objection in quashing the pending criminal proceedings against the petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.7919/2018. So also the contesting respondent in Crl.M.C.No.8218/2018 has sworn to affidavit as Anx.R1 therein stating the same aspects regarding settlement and also stated that they have no objection in quashing the impugned criminal proceedings. In Crl.M.C.No.7919/2018, the police after investigation has submitted impugned Anx-3 final report in Crime No.224/2017 and the case is now pending as C.C.No.862/2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakkudi. So also, in Crl.M.C.No.8218/2018, the police after investigation has submitted the impugned Anx-4 final report in the impugned Crime No.362/2018 and the case is now pending as C.C.No.964/2018 on the file of JFCM, Chalakkudi. It is these proceedings that are sought to be quashed on the ground of settlement. 2. In a catena of decisions, the Apex Court has held that, in appropriate cases involving even non-compoundable offences, the High Crl.M.C. Nos.7919 & 8218 of 2018 6 Court can quash prosecution by exercise of the powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C., if the parties have really settled the whole dispute or if the continuance of the prosecution will not serve any purpose. Here, this Court finds a real case of settlement between the parties and it is also found that continuance of the prosecution in such a situation will not serve any purpose other than wasting the precious time of the court, when the case ultimately comes before the court. On a perusal of the petition and on a close scrutiny of the investigation materials on record and the affidavit of settlement and taking into account the attendant facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the legal principles laid down by the Apex Court in the cases as in _**Gian Singh** v._ _**State of Punjab**_ reported in 2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 160 = (2012) 10 SCC 303 and _**Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr**_ . reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, more particularly paragraph 29 thereof, could be applied in this case to consider the prayer for quashment. 3. Accordingly, the following orders and directions are issued: (i) It is ordered in Crl.M.C.No.7919/2018 that the impugned Anx-2 & impugned Anx-3 final report in Crime No.224/2017 of Koratty Police Station, Thrissur District, which is now pending as C.C.No.862/2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakkudi and all further proceedings arising therefrom pending against all the accused therein will stand quashed under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Crl.M.C. Nos.7919 & 8218 of 2018 7 (ii) It is also ordered in Crl.M.C.No.8218/2018 that the impugned Anx-3 & impugned Anx-4 final report in Crime No.362/2018 of Koratty Police Station, Thrissur District, which is now pending as C.C.No.964/2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakkudi and all further proceedings arising therefrom pending against all the accused therein will stand quashed under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. The petitioners will produce certified copies of this order to the Investigating Officer concerned and the competent court below concerned. Office of Advocate General will forward copy of this order to the Investigating Officer concerned, for necessary information. With these observations and directions, these Crl.M.Cs stand finally disposed of. **Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE** vgd Crl.M.C. Nos.7919 & 8218 of 2018 8 ## **APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 7919/2018** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE 1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED NIL IN C.C NO. 862 OF 2018 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT CHALAKKUDI ANNEXURE THE CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR DATED 16-02-2017 IN CRIME NO. 224 OF 2017 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATES COURT, CHALAKKUDI ANNEXURE 3 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT DATED 18-06-2018 IN C.C NO. 862 OF 2018 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATES COURT, CHALAKKUDI ANNEXURE 4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE CALL DETAIL RECORD OF THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 02-09-2017 ANNEXURE 4(B) TRUE COPY OF THE CALL DETAIL RECORD OF THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 02-09-2017 ANNEXURE (C) TRUE COPY OF THE CALL DETAIL RECORD OF THE 2ND PETITIONERE DATED 02-09-2017 ANNEXURE 4(D) TRUE COPY OF THE CALL DETAIL RECORD OF THE 3RD ACCUSED DATED 02-09-2017 ANNEXURE 5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY SRI. SARVANATH BEFORE THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF CHALAKKUDI DATED 06-06-2017** Crl.M.C. Nos.7919 & 8218 of 2018 9 ## **APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 8218/2018** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE 1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT DATED 12.5.2018 IN C.C. NO. 374 OF 2018 ON THE FILES OF THE HONOURABLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT CHALAKKUDI** **ANNEXURE 2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ANONYMOUS LETTER DATED NIL** **ANNEXURE 3 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR DATED 15.06.2018 IN CRIME NO. 362 OF 2018 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATES COURT, CHALAKKUDI** **ANNEXURE 4 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT DATED 16.7.2018 IN C.C. NO. 964 OF 2018 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, CHALAKKUDI ANNEXURE 5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY SRI. SARVANATH BEFORE THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF CHALAKKUDI DATED 6.6.2017**