Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed

CRL.M.C. No. 1196 of 2022, Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 9 v. State of Kerala and Complainants

Case / Petition Number:CRL.MC NO. 1196 OF 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
Judgment Date
2022-03-28
Court Decision / Holding
The CrL.M.C. is allowed; all further proceedings in Crime No.363/2018 Kodakara Police Station, now pending as CC 2778/2018 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakkuda, are quashed.
Final Disposition
Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • SUNEESH @ SUNI
  • JIBIN @ JABBAR
  • RAHUL DAS
  • ASWINKUMAR
  • MIDHUN
  • AKSHAY
  • BINU (accused 7, deceased)
  • PIBIN
  • Accused No.9 (name not disclosed)

Respondents

  • State of Kerala rep. by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kodakara Police Station through the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
  • Ajith
  • Nidheesh
  • Ragesh

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • N. L. Bitto

Counsels for Respondents

  • • K. Sudhinkumar
  • • Sudheer Gopalakrishnan – Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case (CRL.MC 1196 of 2022) filed by accused Nos. 1–9 (with accused No.7 deceased) seeking quashing of proceedings in Crime No.363 of 2018 of Kodakara Police Station, now pending as CC 2778/2018 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakkuda. The allegations arose on 25 August 2018, when the petitioners, along with others, allegedly assaulted respondents 2–4 with an iron road and caused damage to their vehicle. FIR and final report were filed; cognizance has been taken and the case is at trial. The petition was grounded on a settlement among the parties; affidavits from respondents 2–4 stated they had no subsisting grievance and had no objection to quashing. Public Prosecutor confirmed the settlement. The court found no evidence of previous acquaintance and noted the incident occurred in a tense situation with grave and sudden provocation and no premeditation; injuries were not serious; compensation had been paid. Relying on the Supreme Court’s Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, the court held that it could exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C and quash the entire proceedings. Consequently, the petition was allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.363/2018/CC 2778/2018 were quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 294(b), 427, 435 read with Section 149 IPCCr.P.C. Section 482

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Grave and sudden provocation
  • No premeditation
  • Settlement leading to quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
  • Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012 (4) KLT 108)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that the settlement between the parties ends the dispute and that no subsisting grievance remains to be vindicated through criminal prosecution. They highlight affidavits from respondents 2–4 confirming settlement and no objection to quashing, and point to the absence of premeditation, minimal injuries, and payment of compensation to the vehicle owner. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, they urge the High Court to exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash, arguing that continuing proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would undermine the spirit of settlement.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents 2–4 support quashing, as evidenced by affidavits (Annexures III–V) stating no subsisting grievance and no objection to quashing. Public Prosecutor confirms the settlement. The respondents emphasize that the incident occurred in a tense moment with grave and sudden provocation, there was no premeditation, injuries were not serious, and compensation was paid. They contend that the settlement and lack of public interest justify quashing under the Gian Singh doctrine to secure ends of justice.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab2012 (4) KLT 108PositiveCourt relied on the Gian Singh principle to exercise the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings when there is a settlement and no public interest in continuing the prosecution.

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.M.C. No. 1196 of 2022, Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 9 v. State of Kerala and Complainants 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. ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1944 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 1196 OF 2022 ``` ``` CRIME NO.363 OF 2018 OF THE KODAKARA POLICE STATION ``` ``` CC 2778/2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, IRINJALAKUDA ``` ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 9 (ACCUSED NO.7 NO MORE):`** |`1`|`SUNEESH @ SUNI`| |---|---| ||`AGED 45 YEARS`| ||`S/O. BABU, KUDAMATTIL HOUSE,`| ||`MANAKULANGARA DESOM, KODAKARA VILLAGE,`| ||`CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR, PIN – 680684`| |`2`|`JIBIN @ JABBAR`| ||`AGED 33 YEARS`| ||`S/O GIRIJAN, PORUMBATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE,`| ||`MANAKULANGARA DESOM, KODAKARA VILLAGE,`| ||`CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 68086`| |`3`|`RAHUL DAS`| ||`AGED 26 YEARS`| ||`S/O. DAS, THACHUPARAMBIL HOUSE,`| ||`MANAKULANGARA DESOM, KODAKARA VILLAGE,`| ||`CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680864`| |`4`|`ASWINKUMAR`| ||`AGED 24 YEARS`| ||`S/O. UDAYAKUMAR, PUTHENVEETTIL HOUSE,`| ||`MANAKULANGARA DESOM, KODAKARA VILLAGE,`| ||`CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680864`| |`5`|`MIDHUN`| ||`AGED 28 YEARS`| ||`S/O. ASHOKAN, VALIYAPURAKKAL HOUSE,`| ||`MANAKULANGARA DESOM, KODAKARA VILLAGE,`| ||`CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT , PIN – 680864`| |`6`|`AKSHAY`| ||`AGED 23 YEARS`| ||`S/O. UNNIKRISHNAN, KULANGARA HOUSE,`| ||`MANAKULANGARA DESOM, KODAKARA VILLAGE`| ||`CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680864`| ``` CRL.MC NO. 1196 OF 2022 ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` 7BINU AGED 26 YEARS S/O. PIOUS, AMMANATH HOUSE, MANAKULANGARA DESOM, KODAKARA VILLAGE CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680864 ``` ``` 8PIBIN AGED 28 YEARS S/O. PIOUS, AMMANATH HOUSE, MANAKULANGARA DESOM, KODAKARA VILLAGE CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680864 ``` ``` BY ADV N.L.BITTO ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS /STATE OF KERALA AND THE COMPLAINANTS:`** - `1 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KODAKARA POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM.` - `2 AJITH AGED 35 YEARS S/O.ARAVINDAN, KOCHUMANNIL HOUSE, ALATHUR DESOM, NELLAYI VILLAGE MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680305` - `3 NIDHEESH AGED 32 YEARS S/O. GANESHAN, KURUPPAMPADI HOUSE, ALATHUR DESOM, NELLAYI VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT , PIN – 680305` - `4 RAGESH AGED 28 YEARS S/O. SURESH, MELEDATH HOUSE, ALATHUR DESOM, NELLAYI VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK , THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680305` ``` 3 ``` ## **`CRL.MC NO. 1196 OF 2022`** ``` BY ADVS. ``` ``` SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR SRI.SUDHEER GOPALAKRISHANAN – PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 1196 OF 2022 ``` ``` 4 ``` ## **`ORDER`** The petitioners and another were implicated as accused in Crime No.363 of 2018 of Kodakara Police Station which is now pending in C.C. No.2778 of 2018 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakkuda. The aforesaid crime was registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 294(b), 427, 435, read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The allegation against the petitioners is that, they, along with another person, on 25.08.2008 at about 6 p.m. assaulted the responds 2 to 4 herein, with an iron road, and caused damages to the car in which they were travelling. Annexure 1 First Information Report was registered in respect of the same, and after completing the investigation, Annexure-II Final Report was submitted. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance thereon, and the same is now pending trial. This Crl. M.C. is filed by the petitioners praying for quashing the proceedings. 3. Heard Sri.N.L.Bitto, learned counsel appearing for the ``` CRL.MC NO. 1196 OF 2022 ``` ``` 5 ``` petitioners, Sri. Sudheer Gopalakrishnan learned counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent and Sri. K.Sudhinkumar learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4. 4. The prayer for quashing the proceedings is sought based on a settlement arrived at between the parties. The petitioners herein are the accused 1 to 6, 8 and 9. 7[th] accused is no more. Annexures III to V are the affidavits sworn by the respondents 2 to 4, respectively, acknowledging the settlement between the parties. In the aforesaid affidavits, the injured persons have clearly stated that they do not have any subsisting grievance against the petitioners herein. They have also conveyed their no objection to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4 confirms the aforesaid settlement. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor made available the statements of respondents 2 to 4, recorded by the Station House Officer concerned and in those statements also, the fact of settlement has been reiterated. ``` CRL.MC NO. 1196 OF 2022 ``` ``` 6 ``` 6. On examining the materials available on record, it can be seen that the parties did not have any previous acquaintance. The facts and circumstances clearly indicate that the incident happened in a tense situation where the parties acted under grave and sudden provocation, and there was no premeditation. The injuries sustained by the parties are not very serious. The compensation is also seen paid by the petitioners to the respondents 2 to 4 towards the loss suffered to the vehicle. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that, no purpose would be served by allowing the prosecution to continue. The chances of a successful prosecution are very bleak, particularly because parties have already arrived at a settlement and in such circumstances, by following the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108]** the powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be invoked Accordingly, this Crl. M.C. is allowed, and all further proceedings in Crime No.363/2018 of Kodakara Police Station, ``` CRL.MC NO. 1196 OF 2022 ``` ``` 7 ``` which is now pending as C.C. No.2778/2018 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakuda, are hereby quashed. ``` Sd/- ``` ``` ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE ``` ``` SCS ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 1196 OF 2022 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1196/2022`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure1A TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.363 OF 2018 OF THE KODAKARA POLICE STATION DATED 26/8/2018 Annexure2A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.363 OF 2018, OF THE KODAKARA POLICE STATION FILED ON 7/11/2018 Annexure3ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11/2/2022 Annexure4ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 11/2/2022 Annexure5ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 11/2/2022 ```