High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeF.I.R., Final Report in Crime No. 1358/2021 and...

Criminal Miscellaneous Cases Nos. 1303 of 2024 & 940 of 2025, High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

Case / Petition Number:CRL.M.C. Nos.1303 of 2024 & 940 of 2025
Neutral Citation:2025:KER:21480

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C. Jayachandran
Judgment Date
2025-03-11
Court Decision / Holding
In light of the above, the Court allowed the Crl.M.Cs. FIR No. 1358/2021, the final report in Crime No. 1358/2021, and all further proceedings in CC No.96/2022 against the petitioners are quashed.
Final Disposition
F.I.R., Final Report in Crime No. 1358/2021 and all further proceedings in CC No.96/2022 against the petitioners are quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Arun S J A
  • Varun Rajarangan
  • SASI A

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
  • Akhila, aged 36 years, D/o Sasikala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Pramod J. Dev

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sanal P. Raj
  • • C. N. Prabhakaran
  • • Arun Chandran
  • • Harimohan
  • • Amrita Arun
  • • Aswathy S Menon
  • • Sanal P. Raj

Case Synopsis & Summary

This common order disposed by Justice C. Jayachandran concerns two connected criminal misc. cases (Crl.M.C. Nos. 1303 of 2024 and 940 of 2025) arising from Crime No. 1358/2021 of Karamana Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, and CC No. 96/2022 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioners (Arun S J A, Varun Rajarangan and SASI A in different filings) moved to quash the FIR, final report, and subsequent proceedings under Section 482 CrPC on the basis of a settlement between the parties, verified by a mediation held in the High Court on 05.02.2025. The defacto complainant supported the settlement, and an affidavit stated that she did not wish to prosecute further. The court examined the settlement under the Narinder Singh/Gian Singh/Madan Mohan Abbot guidelines and noted the genuineness and bonafides of the compromise, the fact that offences 323, 447, and 506 are compoundable, and the ends of justice would be served by quashing. The court concluded that continuing proceedings would amount to abuse of process and that quashing would secure the ends of justice. Ultimately, the court allowed the Crl.M.Cs and quashed the FIR, final report, and further proceedings in the connected cases against the petitioners."

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 CrPCSection 320 CrPCSection 307 IPCSections 201, 294(b), 323, 354, 447, 506 and 34 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Ends of justice
  • Abuse of process of Court
  • Inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash
  • Common sense approach
  • Settlement in criminal proceedings can be basis for quashing where appropriate

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants contended that the offences involved are non-murderous and the dispute is purely personal. The settlement reached between the parties, verified by mediation on 05.02.2025, should be recognised; settling the matter via the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC would uphold the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process. They relied on established guidelines from Kulwinder Singh (2007), later approved in Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, and on the common-sense approach articulated in Madan Mohan Abbot to justify quashing given the genuine, voluntary, and fair settlement.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued the state’s interest in prosecuting non-compoundable aspects of the case and maintaining public justice. However, the record shows the defacto complainant has no objection to quashing and the settlement has been signed; the court still weighed the nature of offences and the likelihood of conviction, noting the compoundability of certain offences and the overall goal to avoid abuse of process while considering ends of justice.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Kulwinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another(2007) 4 CTC 769PositiveFive-judge bench laid down guidelines for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 when the offences are not compoundable, allowing compounding of certain offences on a voluntary, fair settlement.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another(2012) 10 SCC 303PositiveApproved the Kulwinder Singh guidelines; cited with approval as the standard for accepting settlements in respect of non-compoundable offences.
Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab(2014) 6 SCC 466PositiveGuided the extent of sanctioning invocation of 482 CrPC in the context of quashing a crime; used to support the quashing parameters.
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab(2008) 4 SCC 582PositiveAdvocated a common-sense approach to quashment in personal disputes and emphasized saving time for more meaningful litigation.

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 Criminal Miscellaneous Cases Nos. 1303 of 2024 & 940 of 2025, High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

**==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:21480` ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1946 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 940 OF 2025 ``` ``` CRIME NO.1358/2021 OF KARAMANA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ``` ``` IN CC NO.96 OF 2022 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ``` ## **`THIRUVANANTHAPURAM`** ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2:`** - **`1 ARUN S J AGED 35 YEARS S/O. SASI A., RESIDING IN SOPANAM, K G 188-A, KALPAKA GARDENS, PAPPANAMCODE, NEMOM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695018`** - **`2 VARUN RAJARANGAN AGED 35 YEARS S/O RAJARANGAN JANARDHANAN BHASKARAN, RESIDING IN IN SOPANAM, K G 188-A, KALPAKA GARDENS, PAPPANAMCODE, NEMOM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695018`** ## **`BY ADV PRAMOD J.DEV`** ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031`** - **`2 AKHILA AGED 36 YEARS D/O SASIKALA, RESIDING IN KGRA 158 E, KALPAKA GARDENS, PAPPANAMCODE, NEMOM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695018`** ``` Crl.M.C.Nos.1303 of 2024 & 940 of 2025 ``` ``` 2025:KER:21480 ``` **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [24 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` BY ADVS. SRI. SANAL P. RAJ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ARUN CHANDRAN AMRITA ARUN(K/1870/2021) ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 11.03.2025, ALONG WITH CRL.MC.1303/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` Crl.M.C.Nos.1303 of 2024 & 940 of 2025 ``` ``` 2025:KER:21480 ``` **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** - 3 - ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1946 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 1303 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.1358/2021 OF KARAMANA POLICE STATION, ``` ## **`THIRUVANANTHAPURAM`** ``` IN CC NO.96 OF 2022 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ``` ## **`THIRUVANANTHAPURAM`** ## **`PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED:`** ``` 1SASI A AGED 65 YEARS S/O. AYYAPPAN, RESIDING IN SOPANAM, K G 188-A, KALPAKA GARDENS, PAPPANAMCODE, NEMOM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695018 ``` ``` BY ADV PRAMOD J.DEV ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031`** ``` 2THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KARAMANA POLICE STATION, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 695002 ``` ``` 3AKHILA AGED 36 YEARS D/O SASIKALA, RESIDING IN KGRA 158 E, KALPAKA GARDENS, PAPPANAMCODE, NEMOM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695018 ``` ``` Crl.M.C.Nos.1303 of 2024 & 940 of 2025 ``` ``` 2025:KER:21480 ``` **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** - 4 - ``` BY ADVS. SRI. C.N. PRABHAKARAN, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ARUN CHANDRAN HARIMOHAN(K/000327/2018) AMRITA ARUN(K/1870/2021) ASWATHY S MENON(K/2316/2023) ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 11.03.2025, ALONG WITH CRL.MC.940/2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` Crl.M.C.Nos.1303 of 2024 & 940 of 2025 ``` ``` 2025:KER:21480 ``` - 5 - **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.`** ``` --------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.Nos.1303 of 2024 & 940 of 2025 --------------------------------------- Dated, this the 11[th] day of March, 2025 ``` ## **`COMMON ORDER`** ``` A five Judges Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kulwinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another ``` ``` [(2007) 4 CTC 769], framed broad guidelines as regards quashment of the criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code in respect of offences which are not compoundable in terms of Section 320 of the Code. One among the guidelines was that the offences against human body, other than murder and culpable homicide, may be permitted to be compounded, when the court is in a position to record a finding that the settlement between the parties is voluntary and fair. These guidelines were quoted with approval by a three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court inGian Singh v. State of Punjab and another [(2012) 10 SCC 303]. Similarly in Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab [(2014) 6 SCC 466], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has gone to ``` ``` Crl.M.C.Nos.1303 of 2024 & 940 of 2025 ``` ``` 2025:KER:21480 ``` **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [24 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` the extent of sanctioning invocation of the inherent power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the F.I.R. in a crime alleging offence under Section 307, which is a heinous and serious offence. A practical approach is seen adopted by the Hon'ble Supreme in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [(2008) 4 SCC 582] as regards quashment in respect of offences like 379, 406, 409, 418, etc., the relevant findings of which are extracted herebelow: ``` ``` “6.We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.” ``` ``` 2.In the facts at hand, petitioners in Crl.M.C. No. ``` ``` 940/2025 are accused nos.1 and 2; and the petitioner in ``` ``` 2025:KER:21480 ``` **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` Crl.M.C.Nos.1303 of 2024 & 940 of 2025 ``` **==> picture [24 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** ``` Crl.M.C. No. 1303/2024 is the 3[rd]accused in Crime No.1358/2021 of Karamana Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, now pending as C.C.No.96/2022 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram. As per the final report, the offences alleged are under Sections 201, 294(b), 323, 354, 447, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners seek quashment of entire proceedings in the above Calendar Case, on the strength of the settlement arrived at by and between the parties. ``` ``` 3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in both Crl.M.Cs, learned counsel for the defacto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records. ``` ``` 4.On perusal of the statements of thedefacto complainant and CW2 (injured), recorded by the investigating Officer, it is clear that the issues between the petitioners, the defacto complainant and the injured are settled in mediation before the High Court on 05.02.2025. Therefore, the defacto complainant has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners/accused. That apart, it is noticed that, along with these Crl.M.Cs, an additional ``` ``` Crl.M.C.Nos.1303 of 2024 & 940 of 2025 ``` ``` 2025:KER:21480 ``` **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [24 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` affidavit has been sworn to by the defacto complainant, wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes have been amicably settled and that she does not wish to prosecute the case, any further. The defacto complainant would also state that she has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. This Court has also perused the settlement agreement executed between the defacto complainant and the 3[rd] accused, wherein the settlement is vouched and no objection to the quashing of the instant Crl.M.Cs are reiterated. This Court, is therefore, convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine and bonafide. Learned Counsel for the defacto complainant would also endorse that the quashment sought for can be allowed. ``` ``` 5.In the light of the above referred facts, this Court is of the opinion that the necessary parameters, as culled out inNarinder Singh (supra),Madan Mohan Abbot(supra) and Gian Singh (Supra), are fully satisfied. This Court is convinced that further proceedings against the petitioners will be a futile exercise, inasmuch as the disputes have ``` ``` Crl.M.C.Nos.1303 of 2024 & 940 of 2025 ``` ``` 2025:KER:21480 ``` **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [24 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` already been settled. There is little possibility of any conviction in the crime. Dehors the settlement arrived at by and between the parties, if they are compelled to face the criminal proceedings, the same, in the estimation of this Court, will amount to abuse of process of Court. The quashment sought for would secure the ends of justice. This Court also notice that offences under Sections 323, 447 and 506 are compoundable, which is all the more a reason to accept the compromise between the parties. ``` ``` In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. F.I.R., and Final Report in Crime no.1358/2021 and all further proceedings in C.C.No.96/2022 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thiruvananathapuram, as against the petitioners in both Crl.M.Cs/accused, are hereby quashed. ``` ## **`Sd/-`** ## **`C. JAYACHANDRAN`** ## **`JUDGE`** ``` SKP ``` ``` Crl.M.C.Nos.1303 of 2024 & 940 of 2025 ``` ``` 2025:KER:21480 ``` **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** - 10 - ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1303/2024`** ## **`PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES:`** - **`ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA`** - **`ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME NO. 1358 OF 2021 OF THE KARAMANA POLICE STATION NOW PENDING BEFORE THE HON’BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE’S COURT I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM`** - **`ANNEXURE A3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 1358 OF 2021 OF THE KARAMANA POLICE STATION NOW PENDING BEFORE THE HON’BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE’S COURT I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM`** - **`ANNEXURE A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.09.2021 IN CRL MC NO. 2061 OF 2021 OF THE HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM`** - **`ANNEXURE A5 A TRUE COPY OF THE SCENE MAHAZAR DATED 29.08.2021 PREPARED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT`** - **`ANNEXURE A6 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE SISTER AND HUSBAND OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT`** - **`RESPONDENTS’ ANNEXURES:`** - **`ANNEXURE R3(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BY THE MOTHER OF THE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT DATE 05.04.2021 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE R3(A)`** ``` ANNEXURE R3(B)A TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 17.08.2021 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE R3(B) ``` ``` ANNEXURE R3(C)A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 24.08.2021 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE R3(C) ``` ``` Crl.M.C.Nos.1303 of 2024 & 940 of 2025 ``` ``` 2025:KER:21480 ``` **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** - 11 - ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 940/2025`** ## **`PETITIONERS’ ANNEXURES:`** ``` ANNEXURE A1CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 1358 OF 2021 OF THE KARAMANA POLICE STATION ISSUED BY THE HON’BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE’S COURT I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ``` ``` ANNEXURE A2CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 1358 OF 2021 OF THE KARAMANA POLICE STATION ISSUED BY THE HON’BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE’S COURT I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ``` ``` ANNEXURE A3A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.09.2021 IN CRL MC NO. 2061 OF 2021 OF THE HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ``` ``` RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL ``` ``` TRUE COPY ``` ``` P.A. TO JUDGE ```