Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeThe petition is allowed; the proceedings are qu...

Binu @ Koya and others v. State of Kerala and others

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No. 6742 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date
2016-10-24
Court Decision / Holding
The petition is allowed. Annexure-A final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners in CC 1398/2013 are quashed.
Final Disposition
The petition is allowed; the proceedings are quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Binu @ Koya
  • Manoj
  • Sreejith
  • Rajesh
  • Subin

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by the Sub Inspector of Manglapuram Police Station represented through the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
  • Josh, S/o. Raju
  • Sujith, S/o. Sharangadaran

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Shajin S. Hameed

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri T.R. Renjith (Public Prosecutor)
  • • Sri P.M. Saneer

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 CrPC filed by five petitioners seeking to quash C.C. No.1398/2013 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Attingal, arising from Manglapuram Police Station Crime 522/2013. The petitioners—Binu @ Koya, Manoj, Sreejith, Rajesh, and Subin—were charged with offences including sections 143, 147, 148 IPC, 294(b), 324, 506(i), 427, read with 149 IPC, for forming an unlawful assembly and assaulting respondents 2 and 3 on the night of 2 July 2013. The respondents, who are the victims, filed affidavits saying they have no grievance and that a settlement had been arrived at between the parties. The petitioners contended that the High Court’s inherent power under Section 482 CrPC can quash where there is a settlement and the dispute has been resolved, citing Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, among others. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about quashing but acknowledged no other pending cases against the petitioners. The court referred to Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, and Rajesh Kamath J. and Others v. Mohana Kurup and Others to outline the scope of 482 in cases with civil flavour or settlements. After considering the facts, the judge held the offences are not grave and that private settlement reduces the likelihood of conviction, avoiding oppression. The petition is allowed; proceedings in CC 1398/2013 are quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of CrPCSections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 324, 506(i) and 427 read with Section 149 IPCSection 320 CrPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Power of High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings based on settlements between private parties; not extend to crimes against society
  • Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another, 2012 (10) SCC 303
  • Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2014 (6) SCC 466
  • Rajesh Kamath J. and Others v. Mohana Kurup and Others, AIR 2016 SC 2452

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submitted that the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC permit quashing where the parties have resolved their dispute, especially in private settlements. Since the offence is not grave and the matter is private in nature, quashing would avoid oppression and conserve judicial resources.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about invoking 482 CrPC in such matters, arguing that 482 should not be used to circumvent criminal proceedings. However, the respondents acknowledged there were no other pending cases against the petitioners. We rely on established precedents to determine the propriety of quashing in light of settlements and the nature of the offences.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another2012 (10) SCC 303PositiveCourt uses Gian Singh to support quashing under 482 based on settlements, with limitation that it does not apply to crimes against society.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab2014 (6) SCC 466PositiveProvides guidelines for exercise of 482 in quashing proceedings, including those based on settlements.
Rajesh Kamath J. and Others v. Mohana Kurup and OthersAIR 2016 SC 2452PositiveCited as a recent authoritative view in support of using 482 in appropriate settlement-based 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 Binu @ Koya and others v. State of Kerala and others 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** **MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/2ND KARTHIKA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 6742 of 2016 () ---------------------------** **CC 1398/2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTYRATE COURT-II, ATTINGAL. CRIME NO.522/2013 OF MANGALAPURAM POLICE STATION.** **..........** ## **PETITIONER(S)/A1 TO A5:** **----------------------** **1. BINU @ KOYA, AGED 29, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, KODIPPURAM, MURUKKUMPUZHA TALUK, VEILOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **2. MANOJ, AGE 27, S/O.THULASEEDHARAN, THOTTUVILAKOM VEEDU, ARATTUMUKKU, MURUKKUMPUZHA, VEILOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **3. SREEJITH, AGE 31, S/O.SATHEESHAN, MADATHIL VEEDU, ERATTAKULANGARA, MURUKKUMPUZHA, VEILOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **4. RAJESH, AGE 27, S/O.RAJAN, PAMBOOR PUTHEN VEEDU, ARATTUMUKKU,** **MURUKKUMPUZHA, VEILOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **5. SUBIN, AGE 29, S/O.VIDYADHARAN, ROHINI, KOCHUTHOPPU, MURUKKUMPUZHA, VEILOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **BY ADV. SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED** **--2--** **--2--** ## **Crl.MC.No. 6742 of 2016 () --------------------------** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE, CW1 & CW2:** **-------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANGALAPURAM POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **2. JOSH, S/O.RAJU, AGE 35, THOPPIL VEEDU, BEHIND MURUKKUMPUZHA RAILWAY STATION, VEILOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN CODE.695 317.** **3. SUJITH,AGE 26, S/O.SHARANGADARAN, THAZHEKULAM, VELLAKULAM, VEILOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN CODE.695 317.** - **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.R.RENJITH R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.M.SANEER** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **mbr/** **Crl.MC.No. 6742 of 2016 () --------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:** **----------------------ANNEXURE A : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.522/2013 OF MANGALAPURAM POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE B : AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE C : AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL ------------------------** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **mbr/** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V., J.** ------------------------------------------ ## **Crl.M.C. No.6742 of 2016** -----------------------------------------Dated this the 24[th] day of October, 2016 ## **O R D E R ~~~~~~~~** 1.This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Code') has been preferred by the petitioners herein for quashing the proceedings pending against them as C.C.No.1398 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court-II, Attingal. In the said case, they stand indicted for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 324, 506(i), 427 read with Section 149 of IPC. The respondents 2 and 3 are the victims. - 2.The prosecution allegation is that on 2.7.2013 at 10.30 p.m., the petitioners in furtherance of their common ## **Crl.M.C. No.6742 of 2016** **-2-** object formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and thereafter assaulted respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and caused injuries. - 3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the party respondents and the learned Public Prosecutor. - 4.The party respondents have have filed separate affidavits wherein they have stated that the petitioners are their neighbours and that they have no subsisting grievance against them. They assert in the affidavits that they do not 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 **Crl.M.C. No.6742 of 2016** **-3-** 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 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 **Crl.M.C. No.6742 of 2016** **-4-** 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, mercantile, civil, partnership, or such like transactions. In all such cases, the parties should have resolved their entire dispute by themselves, mutually. 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 **Crl.M.C. No.6742 of 2016** **-5-** 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 party respondents have 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 party respondents 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 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 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against **Crl.M.C. No.6742 of 2016 -6-** the petitioners now pending as C.C. No. 1398 of 2013 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Attingal are quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V. JUDGE** Ps/24/10/16