High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed (All further proceedings in SC No.1413/...

CRL.MC 501 of 2022 (Kerala High Court, Ernakulam)

Case / Petition Number:CRL.MC 501 of 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Ziyad Rahman A.A.
Judgment Date
2022-05-31
Court Decision / Holding
CRL.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings in S.C.No.1413/2019 pending before the Assistant Sessions Court, Neyyattinkara are hereby quashed.
Final Disposition
Quashed (All further proceedings in SC No.1413/2019 quashed)

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Sarath Manikantan
  • Anandhu Krishna

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
  • Akhil
  • Sumathara j
  • Aneesh
  • Vijeesh
  • The Sub Inspector of Police, Neyyar Dam Police Station

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • M.R.Sasith

Counsels for Respondents

  • • C.S. Hrithwik (Public Prosecutor)
  • • Ranjith E N

Case Synopsis & Summary

This CRL.MC challenges the continuation of S.C.No.1413/2019, pending before the Assistant Sessions Court, Neyyattinkara, arising from Crime No.0111/2019 of Neyyar Dam Police Station. Petitioners Sarath Manikantan and Anandhu Krishna are accused of offences under sections 294(b), 341, 324 and 308 r/w 34 IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act, alleged to have formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted respondents 2 to 5 on the night of 20 February 2019, due to a long-running enmity. The petition relies on a settlement between the parties, supported by affidavits swearing that respondents 2 to 5 have no subsisting grievances and no objection to quashing. The respondents 2 to 5 and the Public Prosecutor verify the settlement through Annexures A3–A6 and an SHO enquiry is noted. The court observes the dispute is essentially private, and the prospects of a successful prosecution are bleak; therefore, invoking the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is appropriate in light of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another. The court also notes that a related crime (No.112/2019) involves other IPC sections and has been settled. In these circumstances, the petition is allowed, and all further proceedings in SC No.1413/2019 are quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

IPC - 294(b), 341, 324, 308 r/w 34Section 27 of the Arms ActSection 482 Cr.P.C.IPC - 143, 147, 149, 447, 323, 324, 326 (in Crime No.112/2019)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
  • Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another (support for exercise of 482 Cr.P.C. in private settlement cases)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that the dispute between the parties is private and has been settled, with affidavits (Annexures A3–A6) showing respondents 2–5 have no subsisting grievances and no objection to quashing. The SHO has verified the settlement; given the nature of the offences and the private nature of the feud, continuing the proceedings would be unwarranted. Relying on Gian Singh, they seek exercise of the court’s inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in SC No.1413/2019.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents 2–5 support the quashing, stating no ongoing grievances and the settlement is genuine; they and the Public Prosecutor confirm the affidavits and SHO verification. They argue the private dispute has been resolved, and quashing would prevent harassment and preserve peace. They acknowledge offences alleged but contend the private settlement and lack of ongoing grievance justify invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another2012(4)KLT 108PositiveCited to justify exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings in a private settlement case.

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 CRL.MC 501 of 2022 (Kerala High Court, Ernakulam) 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 ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. TUESDAY, THE 31[ST] DAY OF MAY 2022 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 501 OF 2022 [TO QUASH PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.1413/2019 PENDING BEFORE THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, NEYYATTINKARA] [CRIME NO.0111/2019 OF NEYYAR DAM POLICE STATION, ## THIRUVANANTHAPURAM] ## PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 & 2: 1 SARATH MANIKANTAN, AGED 28 YEARS S/O. MANIKANTAN, KUMARA BHAVAN, KOVILLOOR DESOM, CHAKKAPPARA, KARIKUZHI P.O., VAZHICHAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695505. 2 ANANDHU KRISHNA, AGED 25 YEARS S/O. MURALIDHARAN, SARASWATHY MANDIRAM, CHAKKAPPARA, KARIKUZHI P.O., VAZHICHAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695505. BY ADV M.R.SASITH ## RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031. 2 AKHIL, AGED 29 YEARS S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY, GOKULAM, CHAKKAPPARA, KARIKUZHI P.O., VAZHICHAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695505. 3 SUMATHARAJ, AGED 41 YEARS S/O. VELUKUTTY KANI, MAITHRI MANDHIRAM, CHAKKAPPARA, KARIKUZHI P.O., VAZHICHAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695505. 4 ANEESH, AGED 29 YEARS CRL.MC No.501 of 2022 2 S/O. AYYAPPAN, SREE PARVATHI MANDHIRAM, CHAKKAPPARA, KARIKUZHI P.O., VAZHICHAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695505. 5 VIJEESH, AGED 28 YEARS S/O. VIJAYAN KANI, KEZHAKINKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, AYYA VILAKAM, CHAKKAPPARA, KARIKUZHI P.O., VAZHICHAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695505. 6 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEYYAR DAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695572. FOR R1 AND R6 BY C.S.HRITHWIK, SR.PP FOR R2 TO R5 BY ADV RANJITH E N THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.MC No.501 of 2022 3 ## O R D E R The petitioners are accused in Crime No.0111/2019 of Neyyar Dam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram which is now pending as S.C.No.1413/2019 before the Assistant Sessions Court, Neyyattinkara. The offences alleged are under Sections 294(b),341,324,308 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 2. The allegation against the petitioners is that, on 20.02.2019 at about 9.30 p.m., petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 due to their previous enmity towards the defacto complainants, in prosecution of their common object, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with dangerous weapons and attacked respondents 2 to 5. It is also alleged that, accused Nos.1 and 2, in prosecution of CRL.MC No.501 of 2022 4 their common object, voluntarily caused hurt to the respondents 2 to 5. The 1[st] accused hit on the right side of the forehead of the 2[nd] respondent with a dangerous weapon, the 2nd accused with an iron pipe hit on the chest, leg, forehead and right thigh of the 2[nd] respondent and also tried to beat 3[rd] , 4[th] and 5[th] respondents with the iron pipe and as a result of which respondents 2 to 5 sustained injuries. 3. Heard Sri. Sasith Panicker, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutor for respondents 1 and 6 and Sri. Renjith E.N., the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 5. 4. The prayer for quashing the proceedings is sought mainly for the reason that, the dispute between the parties has been settled and to substantiate the same, Annexure-A3, CRL.MC No.501 of 2022 5 Annexure-A4, Annexure-A5 and Annexure-A6 affidavits sworn by the 2[nd] , 3[rd] , 4[th] and 5[th] respondents respectively are produced. The fact of settlement is acknowledged in the aforesaid affidavits and it is also specifically stated that, the respondents 2 to 5 have no subsisting grievances against the petitioners herein. The respondents 2 to 5 also clearly expressed their no objection in quashing the proceedings against the petitioners. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 5 also confirms the aforesaid settlement and supports the prayer sought for by the petitioners herein. The veracity of the settlement has been examined by the Station House Officer concerned by contacting respondents 2 to 5. 5. On going through the nature of allegations as contained in Annexure-2 final report, it can be seen that, the dispute is CRL.MC No.501 of 2022 6 basically private in nature. Considering the settlement arrived at between the parties, the chances of a successful prosecution are very bleak and hence no fruitful purpose would be served if the proceedings are allowed to continue. Therefore, I am of the view that going by the decision in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [2012(4)KLT 108], this is a fit case in which the powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked. 6. It is true that, one of the offences alleged against the petitioners is under section 308 of IPC. However, it is seen from the records that, in respect of the very same incident a crime bearing No.112/2019 was registered by the Neyyar Dam Police Station in which respondents 2 to 5 herein are arraigned as accused among other persons. The offences alleged in the said crime are under sections CRL.MC No.501 of 2022 7 143,147,149,447,323,324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. It is reported that, the settlement arrived at between the parties are in respect of both the aforesaid crimes. It is discernible that, the parties are relatives and friends. The dispute between the parties which is subsisting in the form of two cases mentioned above are settled and hence it is only proper that, to ensure peace among the relatives, some indulgence be shown in this case. In such circumstances, I am inclined to invoke the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.PC despite the fact that, the offence under section 308 is seen incorporated. Accordingly this Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings in S.C.No.1413/2019 pending before the Assistant Sessions Court, Neyyattinkara pursuant to Annexure-A2 final report submitted in Crime No.0111/2019 of CRL.MC No.501 of 2022 8 Neyyar Dam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, are hereby quashed. Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE pkk CRL.MC No.501 of 2022 9 ## APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 501/2022 PETITIONERS’ ANNEXURES: Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.0111/2019 OF NEYYAR DAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.0111/2019 OF NEYYAR DAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. Annexure A3 AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Annexure A4 AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Annexure A5 AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. Annexure A6 AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.