Crl.M.C. No. 1059 of 2013

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. T. Ravikumar
Judgment Date: 2013-04-10
Court Decision / Holding: Crl.M.C. allowed. Annexure-A1 FIR in crime No.946 of 2012 and all proceedings pursuant thereto are quashed.
Final Disposition: FIR and all further proceedings quashed; Crl.M.C. allowed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

C.S. Vinod
Subin Raj

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
V. Balakrishnan

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri K. R. Vinod
• Ms. M. S. Letha

Counsels for Respondents

• A. B. Shymol
• S. Hyma

Case Synopsis & Summary

This petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashment of FIR No.946/2012 of the Central Police Station, Ernakulam, lodged against petitioners C.S. Vinod and Subin Raj for alleged offences under section 308 read with section 34 IPC. The FIR arises from a complaint by the second respondent that the accused beat him with an iron rod, though the petitioners contend the dispute was labor-related and has since been amicably resolved. Annexure-A3 contains the joint statement with affidavit showing the parties have settled the entire dispute. The petition argues that although section 308 is not compoundable under section 320 Cr.P.C., the type of offence is purely private and personal, making continued criminal proceedings unjustified in view of the settlement. The learned counsel for the petitioners and the second respondent, along with the Public Prosecutor, addressed the court. The judge relies on the Supreme Court authorities B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab to emphasize that the High Court can exercise its inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in circumstances where continuing would be a waste of time and not in the interests of justice. On these facts, the court holds that continuing is unnecessary; the petition is allowed, and Annexure-A1 FIR and all further proceedings are quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 308 IPC read with Section 34 IPCSection 320 Cr.P.C.Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Inherent jurisdiction of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Settlement/compromise of disputes can justify quashing of FIR under inherent powers when continuation is unnecessary
Compounding of offences under Section 320 Cr.P.C. does not limit inherent jurisdiction

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Petitioners contended the dispute was labor-related; the FIR for an offence under section 308 read with 34 IPC arose from a private dispute; settlement with the second respondent (Annexure-A3) makes continuation unnecessary and the High Court's inherent jurisdiction (Section 482 Cr.P.C.) permits quashing; 308 is not to be given a blanket bar under 320 Cr.P.C. in light of settlement.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents acknowledged the existence of a dispute but argued the sentence and offence cannot be summarily dropped; however, the settlement between the parties and the private nature of the dispute support exercise of inherent jurisdiction to prevent unnecessary prosecution.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana	2003 (2) KLT 1062 (SC)	Positive	Cited to support that Section 320 Cr.P.C. cannot limit or affect the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 (4) KLT 108 SC	Positive	Used to uphold that High Courts can prevent continuation of unnecessarily protracted proceedings where a settlement exists.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR** # **WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2013/20TH CHAITHRA 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1059 of 2013 ()** ## **--------------------------CRIME NO. 946/2012 OF ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED PERSONS:** **--------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. C.S.VINOD, S/O.SIVADAS, AGED 32 YEARS, KIZHUPILLIL HOUSE, CHEMBUMUKKU, VAZHAKKALA, ERNAKULAM.** ## **2. SUBIN RAJ, AGED 29, S/O.K.R.RADHAKRISHNAN, SUBIN NIVAS, PRIYADARSHINI NAGAR, KONTHURUTHY, THEVARA P.O. KOCHI - 13.** **BY ADVS.SRI.K.R.VINOD SMT.M.S.LETHA** ## **COMPLAINANT(S):** ## **-----------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA.** ## **2. V.BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 39, S/O.K.VISWANATHAN,** - **24-A, SREE VIGNESH ILLAM, 4TH STREET, COIMBATORE TAMIL NADUPRESENTLY RESIDING AT V-C JM CRESCENT FLAT, P.J.ANTONY ROAD, PALARIVATTOM.** ## **R2 BY ADV. SMT.A.B.SHYMOL BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-04-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1059 of 2013 ()** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S) ANNEXURES :** **ANNEXURE A1: THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR NO. 946/2012 OF CENTRAL PS** **ANNEXURE A2: THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE POLICE ENLISTING THE PETITIONERS AS ACCUSED NO. 1 AND 2** **ANNEXURE A3: JOINT STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONERS AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH AFFIDAVIT.** **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **dlk** ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ========================== CRL.M.C. No.1059 OF 2013 ==========================** Dated this the 10[th] day of April, 2013 ## **ORDER** Petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in crime No.946 of 2012 of Central Police Station, Ernakulam registered against them alleging commission of offence under section 308 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The aforesaid crime was registered based on a complaint lodged by the second respondent to the effect that he was beaten with an iron rod, by the accused persons. The contention of the petitioners is that it is a labour dispute that culminated in the registration of the aforesaid crime. This petition has been filed seeking quashment of Annexure-A1 FIR in crime No.946 of 2012 and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners on the strength of the settlement arrived at between the second respondent and the petitioners which is obvious from Annexure-A3. AnnexureA1 would reveal that the allegation of commission of offence under **Crl.M.C.1059/13** 2 section 308 read with section 34 IPC has been made against the petitioners on the allegation that in case the defacto complainant had not parried the blow with the iron rod with his right hand, it would have hit on his head and would have resulted in his death. Apart from the allegation of commission of offence under section 308, there is no allegation of commission of any other offence made against the petitioners. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and also the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the second respondent with Annexure-A3 would reveal that the entire disputes that led to the registration of the aforesaid crime have been settled amicably between the petitioners and the second respondent. True that the offence under section 308 is not compoundable in terms of the provisions under section 320 Cr.P.C. However the accusation **Crl.M.C.1059/13** 3 in Annexure-A1 would reveal that the nature of the offence alleged against the petitioners is purely personal and private. The second respondent has settled and compromised the disputes that constrained him to lodge complaint against the petitioners alleging commission of offence under section 308. That apart, going by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in **B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003 (2) KLT 1062 (SC))** the provisions under Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not and could not limit or affect the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I have already adverted to the circumstances under which the commission of offence under section 308 is charged against the petitioners. In the said circumstances, I am of the view that the chance for a successful prosecution against the petitioners is very bleak. In the decision in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108 SC],** the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it is the duty of the High Courts to prevent continuation of the criminal proceedings which became absolutely unnecessary. In this case, the nature of the accusation made against the petitioners in Annexure-A1 and the factum of settlement arrived at between the petitioners and the second **Crl.M.C.1059/13** 4 respondent, as is obvious from Annexure-A3, persuade this Court to form the opinion that continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners has become absolutely unnecessary. In the said circumstances, compelling continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners based on Annexure-A1 would result in the sheer wasting of the invaluable time of the Court and as such, would not be in the interest of justice. It is only appropriate for this Court in the circumstances, to terminate the criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioners based on Annexure-A1. In view of the discussions as above, this Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure-A1 FIR laid in crime No.946 of 2012 of Central Police Station, Ernakulam and all further proceedings pursuant thereto, against the petitioners, are hereby quashed. ## **Sd/-** ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR** ## **(JUDGE)** ## **spc/** **Crl.M.C.1059/13** 5 **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **Crl.M.C.1059/13** 6 **JUDGMENT September, 2010**