High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeCriminal Miscellaneous Case disposed of; quashi...

Basil Robinson @ Beny v. State of Kerala; Samuel v. State of Kerala (Crl.M.C. Nos. 7132/2019 & 5444/2019)

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C.No.7132/2019(B); Crl.M.C.No.5444/2019(A)

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Alexander Thomas
Judgment Date
2019-12-10
Court Decision / Holding
The impugned Anx-A Final Report in Crime No.169/2014 (now CC 681/2014, JFMC, Varkala) and the Anx-A FIR in Crime No.241/2019, along with all further proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed. The Criminal Miscellaneous Cases are disposed of as per the final order. Certified copies must be produced before the investigating officers and the respective courts, and copies forwarded to the AG’s office for information.
Final Disposition
Criminal Miscellaneous Case disposed of; quashing of final report and FIR and all further proceedings.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • BASIL ROBINSON @ BENY
  • SAMUEL

Respondents

  • STATE OF KERALA represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
  • ANTONY
  • ROSIN
  • BASIL ROBINSON @ BERNY

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Adv. Sri. BABU JOSE
  • • Adv. Sri. N.P. PRAJEESH

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala (Smt/Sri. Advocate not named in text)
  • • Adv. N. P. PRAJEESH
  • • Adv. BABU JOSE

Case Synopsis & Summary

These connected Criminal Miscellaneous Cases arise from two linked prosecutions in Anjuthengu Police Station: Crime No.169/2014 (final report, now CC No.681/2014 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Varkala) and Crime No.241/2019 (alleged offences under the POCSO Act). The petitioners, Basil Robinson alias Beny and Samuel, challenge the continuation of proceedings on the ground that the disputes have been fully settled and the de facto complainants no longer intend to pursue the matter. The Public Prosecutor indicates that the investigation is complete and that the de facto complainants’ statements corroborate settlement, with no intention to continue. The petitioners rely on Supreme Court principles laid down in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab; Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab; and Yogendra Yadav v. State of Jharkhand, arguing that in appropriate cases, even non‑compoundable offences can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. if settlement is genuine and continuing prosecution serves no purpose. The Kerala High Court accepts the existence of a real settlement and, applying the cited authorities, holds that quashing is warranted. Consequently, the Anx-A Final Report in Crime No.169/2014 (CC 681/2014) and the Anx-A FIR in Crime No.241/2019, along with all further proceedings, are quashed. The petitions are disposed of with directions to inform the investigating officers and the courts.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 452 IPCSection 294(b) IPCSection 341 IPCSection 323 IPCSection 324 IPCSection 427 IPCSection 9m, 9n, 9p, 10, 11(i), 11(ii) r/w Section 10 of the POCSO ActSection 482 Cr.P.C.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Quashing of prosecution under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in appropriate cases where parties have settled and continuing prosecution serves no purpose.
  • Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 160 (ref. to para 29)
  • Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2014 (6) SCC 466 (para 29)
  • Yogendra Yadav v. State of Jharkhand, 2014 (9) SCC 653 / 2014 (8) Scale 634 (referenced for settlement principle)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants contended that genuine settlements between the parties render continued prosecution oppressive and wasteful. They relied on Supreme Court precedents permitting quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. even in non‑compoundable offences where the dispute is truly settled and proceeding would not serve any purpose, particularly when the de facto complainant and other respondents consent to quashing. The relief sought encompassed quashing of the Anx-A Final Report in Crime No.169/2014 (CC 681/2014) and the Anx-A FIR in Crime No.241/2019, with directions to proceed in accordance with the order.

Contentions of Respondents

The State/prosecutor acknowledged the settlement and submitted that continuing the prosecution would not serve a purpose; it relied on established principles that where the parties have settled and further proceedings would be a waste of judicial resources, quashing may be warranted, subject to the Court’s satisfaction about the genuineness of the settlement and public interest.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 160PositiveCited to justify exercise of 482 Cr.P.C. to quash when settlement exists.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr2014 (6) SCC 466PositiveUsed to reinforce settlement-based quashing principle.
Yogendra Yadav & others v. The State of Jharkhand & another2014 (9) SCC 653 =2014 (8) Scale 634PositiveCited for the para‑29 rationale supporting settlement‑led quashing.

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 Basil Robinson @ Beny v. State of Kerala; Samuel v. State of Kerala (Crl.M.C. Nos. 7132/2019 & 5444/2019) 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 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941** ## **Crl.MC.No.7132 OF 2019(B)** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 681/2014 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,VARKALA** ## **CRIME NO.169/2014 OF Anchuthengu Police Station , Thiruvananthapuram** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **BASIL ROBINSON @ BENY, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. ROBINSON, PUTHUVALVEETTIL, NEAR MUTHALAPPOZHI, THALAMPALLI DESOM, SARKKARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSE** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031,** - **2 ANTONY, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O. JOBBOY, PUTHUVALVEETTIL, THALAMPALLI DESOM, SARKKARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695303.** **R2 BY ADV. N.P.PRAJEESH** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SRI.SANTHOSH PETER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.12.2019, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5444/2019(A), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ::2:: Crl.M.C.Nos.7132 & 5444 Of 2019 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941** ## **Crl.MC.No.5444 OF 2019(A)** **CRIME NO.241/2019 OF Anchuthengu Police Station , Thiruvananthapuram** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **SAMUEL, AGED 48 YEARS S/O.JOBBY, THAZHAM PALLY HOUSE, SHARKKARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.N.P.PRAJEESH** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA,**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH**| ||**COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 031.**| |**2**|**ROSIN, AGED 29 YEARS, D/O.MERLIN, PUTHUVAL**| ||**HOUSE, THAZHAMPALLY, SARKKARA VILLAGE,**| ||**ANJUTHENGU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN -**| ||**695 303.**| |**3**|**BASIL ROBINSON @ BERNY,**| ||**AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.ROBINSON, PUTHUVALVEETTIL,**| ||**THALAMPALLI DESOM, SARKKARA VILLAGE,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695 303.**| **R2-3 BY ADV. BABU JOSE** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.12.2019, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.7132/2019(B), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ::3:: Crl.M.C.Nos.7132 & 5444 Of 2019 ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J** . ----------------------------Crl.M.C.Nos.7132 & 5444 Of 2019 --------------------------------Dated this the 10[th] day of December, 2019. ## **O R D E R** Crl.M.C.No.7132/2019 The petitioner has been implicated as an accused in Anx-A Final Report in Crime No.169/2014 of Anjuthengu Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Secs.452, 294(b), 341, 323, 324 & 427 of the I.P.C., and which is now pending as C.C.No.681/2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Varkala. The prosecution case is that the accused on 7.4.2014 at 7:00 p.m. trespassed into the shoproom of the de facto complainant and attacked him by hitting and kicking and also destroyed the articles in the shoproom and caused damages for an amount of Rs.7,000/-. 2. Heard. 3. The learned prosecutor was earlier requested to get instructions. Today when the matter has been taken into consideration, the learned Prosecutor would submit on the basis of the instructions, that the Investigating Officer concerned has ::4:: Crl.M.C.Nos.7132 & 5444 Of 2019 conducted enquiry and has also taken the statement of the 2[nd] respondent- de facto complainant wherein he has stated that the matter has been fully settled and the facts stated in Anx-B are correct and he is not intending to continue the impugned criminal proceedings any longer. However, the petitioner herein has also agreed for quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings in the connected case in Crl.M.C.No.5444/2019 in which he is the father of the victim (3[rd] respondent). Crl.M.C.No.5444/2019 4. The petitioner herein has been arrayed as the accused in Anx-A FIR in Crime No.241/2019 of Anjuthengu Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Secs.9m, 9n, 9p, 10, 11(i), 11(ii) r/w Sec.10 of the POCSO Act. The prosecution case is that the petitioner herein, who is a close relative of the minor victim girl, with an intention to commit aggravated sexual assault on the minor girl, aged 6 years, on 17.3.2019, at 7:00 p.m., called the victim to his residence and has done the alleged acts and thereby the petitioner has committed the ::5:: Crl.M.C.Nos.7132 & 5444 Of 2019 abovesaid offences. 5. The learned prosecutor was earlier requested to get instructions. Today when the matter has been taken into consideration, the learned Prosecutor would submit on the basis of the instructions, that the Investigating Officer concerned has conducted enquiry and has also taken the statements of respondents 2 & 3 wherein they have stated that the matter has been fully settled and the facts stated in Anxs-B & C are correct and they are not intending to continue the impugned criminal proceedings any longer. 6. In a catena of decisions, the Apex Court has held that, in appropriate cases involving even non-compoundable offences, the High 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 ::6:: Crl.M.C.Nos.7132 & 5444 Of 2019 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, and _**Yogendra Yadav & others v. The State of Jharkhand & another**_ reported in 2014 (9) SCC 653 =2014 (8) Scale 634, could be applied in this case to consider the prayer for quashment. 7. Accordingly, it is ordered in Crl.M.C.No.7132/2019 that the impugned Anx-A Final Report in Crime No.169/2014 of Anjuthengu Police Station, which is now pending as C.C.No.681/2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Varkala and all further proceedings arising therefrom pending against the accused will stand quashed. 8. Further it is also ordered in Crl.M.C.No.5444/2019 that the impugned Anx-A FIR in Crime No.241/2019 of Anjuthengu Police Station and all further proceedings arising therefrom pending against the accused will stand quashed. ::7:: Crl.M.C.Nos.7132 & 5444 Of 2019 The respective petitioners will produce certified copies of this order before the investigating officer concerned and the competent court below concerned for necessary information. The office of the Advocate General will forward copy of this order to the investigating officer concerned for information. With these observations and directions, the above Criminal Miscellaneous Case stands finally disposed of. **Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.** bkn/- ::8:: Crl.M.C.Nos.7132 & 5444 Of 2019 ## **APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 7132/2019** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.169/2014 OF ANJUTHENGU POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE B THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** ::9:: Crl.M.C.Nos.7132 & 5444 Of 2019 ## **APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 5444/2019** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT AND F.I. STATEMENT IN CRIME NO.241/2019 OF ANJUTHENGU POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE B THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2. ANNEXURE C THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3.**