Crl.M.C. No. 1538 of 2013

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. T. Ravikumar
Judgment Date: 2013-04-12
Court Decision / Holding: Annexure-A charge sheet in Crime No. 498/2012 and all further proceedings in C.P. No. 135/2012 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sasthamkotta, are quashed.
Final Disposition: Quashed; final report and all further proceedings are terminated in light of private Settlement and inherent powers under Cr.P.C. 482.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Vinayan @ Kuttan
Asokan
Renjith
Pranav @ Pranav.M.PillaI
Sarath

Respondents

State of Kerala, represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Arun Kumar
Thankappan Pillai
Radhamma
The Sub Inspector of Police, Sasthamcotta Police Station

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri K.V. Anil Kumar

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor SMT. S. Hyma
• Sri P.V. Dileep

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case filed by five accused (A1–A5) challenging the final report in Sasthamkotta Police Station Crime No. 498 of 2012 and seeking quashment of the proceedings in C.P. No. 135 of 2012 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sasthamkotta. The petition asserts the acts alleged under IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 323, 324 and 308 read with 149 IPC are part of a private, personal dispute. The petition relies on Annexures B–D, affidavits by respondents 2–4, stating that the entire dispute has been amicably settled and that they have no objection to quashing the final report and further proceedings. The court notes that while section 308 IPC is non-compoundable, the overall case does not show a common object to commit a graver offence, and the injuries sustained are not of a grave nature. Relying on the Apex Court decisions B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, the court finds that the matter can be disposed of by exercising inherent jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. to terminate the proceedings, given the private nature of the dispute and the settlement between parties. Consequently, the petition is allowed and Annexure-A final report and further proceedings are quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

IPC 143IPC 147IPC 148IPC 447IPC 323IPC 324IPC 308 read with 149 IPCIPC 149Cr.P.C. 482Cr.P.C. 320

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C
Quashing of criminal proceedings on private settlement (Gian Singh doctrine)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petition contends that the offences alleged arise out of a private, personal dispute and seeks quashment of Annexure-A final report and all further proceedings. It recognizes the occurrence of offences including non-compoundable ones under IPC, but relies on affidavits (Annexures B–D) showing amicable settlement and no objection to quashing. The pleadings stress that the court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C, guided by decisions like B.S. Joshi and Gian Singh, to terminate the proceedings and end the fruitless prosecution.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents oppose wholesale quashing on grounds that non-compoundable offences are involved and public interest requires supervision of the proceedings; however, the affidavits acknowledging settlement and the private nature of the dispute are noted as factors to be considered within the broader framework of Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana	2003 (2) KLT 1062 (SC)	Positive	Cited to support exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash proceedings in cases of personal private disputes, even when offences may be involved.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)	Positive	Cited to illustrate that quashing can be appropriate in light of a private settlement and to avoid futile continuation of prosecution; supports termination of proceedings in this case.

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 FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2013/22ND CHAITHRA 1935 Crl.MC.No. 1538 of 2013 () --------------------------CP.135/2012 of J.M.F.C., SASTHAMCOTTA CRIME NO. 498/2012 OF SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION , KOLLAM PETITIONERS/ACCUSED-A1-5: --------------------------------- 1. VINAYAN @ KUTTAN, S/O.RAVINDRAN PILLAI, HARI SADANAM, MUTHUPILAKKAD SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE, PORUVAZHY.P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. ASOKAN, AGED 23 YEARS S/O.GOPALA KRISHNA PILLAI, ASHOK BHAVANAM MUTHUPILAKKAD WEST, SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE PORUVAZHY.P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. RENJITH, S/O.RAMA KRISHNA PILLAI, RENJITH BHAVANAM AMPALATHUMBHAGOM MURI, PORUVAZHI VILLAGE KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. PRANAV @ PRANAV.M.PILLAI, S/O.MOHANAN PILLAI, PRANAMAM, AMPALATHUMBHAGOM MURI PORUVAZHI VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 5. SARATH, - S/O.MOHANAN PILLAI, SREEGEETHAYIL, MUTHUPILAKKAD WEST SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE, PORUVAZHY.P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. ARUN KUMAR,, AGED 30 YEARS S/O. THANKAPPAN PILLAI, NELLITHANATHU KIZHAKKATHIL MUTHUPILAKKAD WEST MURI, SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE KOLLAM DISTRICT - 690520. Crl.MC.No. 1538 of 2013 () 2 3. THANKAPPAN PILLAI,, AGED 76 YEARS S/O.KRISHNAPILLAI, NELLITHANATHU KIZHAKKATHIL MUTHUPILAKKAD WEST MURI, SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE KOLLAM DISTRICT-690520. 4. RADHAMMA,, AGED 65 YEARS - W/O.THANKAPPAN PILLAI, NELLITHANATHU KIZHAKKATHIL MUTUPILAKKAD WEST MURI, SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE KOLLAM DISTRICT-690520 . 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT-690520. R1 & R5 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA R2 & R3 BY ADV.SRI.P.V.DILEEP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 1204-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 1538 of 2013 () --------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS ------------------------------ ANNEXURE-A A TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.498/2012 OF SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION IN KOLLAM DISTRICT. ANNEXURE-B AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 04.04.2013. ANNEXURE-C AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 04.04.2013. ANNEXURE-D AFFIDAVIT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 04.04.2013. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL // TRUE COPY // TKS P.S. TO JUDGE ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ========================== CRL.M.C. No.1538 OF 2013 ==========================** Dated this the 12[th] day of April, 2013 ## **ORDER** Petitioners are accused 1 to 5 in crime No.498 of 2012 of Sasthamkotta Police Station registered alleging commission of offences under sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 323, 324 and 308 read with section 149 of the Indian penal Code. The committal proceedings against the petitioners are pending before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sasthamkotta in C.P.No.135 of 2012. The gist of the allegation is that on 25.2.2012 at about 9.30 p.m, the petitioners formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common object, unleashed attack on respondents 2 to 4 with dangerous weapons like iron rod. In the said attack, respondents 2 to 4 sustained injuries. The second respondent is the defacto complainant. This petition has been filed seeking quashment of Annexure-A final report laid in the aforesaid crime and all further proceedings pursuant thereto in C.P.No.135 of 2012 on the strength of **Crl.M.C.1538/13** 2 the settlement arrived at between the petitioners and respondents 2 to 4. The factum of settlement of the entire disputes that led to the registration of the aforesaid crime is evident from Annexures- B to D which are respectively the affidavits sworn in by respondents 2 to 4 to the effect that the entire disputes that constrained them to lodge complaint against the petitioners regarding the commission of the aforesaid offences have been settled amicably. It is further stated therein that in the light of the said settlement arrived at between them, they did not wish to prosecute the petitioners any further and that they got no objection in quashing Annexure-A final report laid in crime No.498 of 2012 of Sasthamkotta Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant thereto in C.P.No.135 of 2012 pending before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sasthamkotta. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4 and the learned Public Prosecutor. **Crl.M.C.1538/13** 3 3. Having heard the rival submissions and perusing Annexures-B to D affidavits, I am inclined to accept the contention of the parties that the case involved is private and purely personal in nature. True that commission of non-compoundable offences is also alleged against the petitioners. The offence under Section 308 IPC is charged on the allegation that if the blow with the iron rod by the second petitioner/second accused was not parried with hands by the 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents it would have caused death of the second respondent/CW1. The other offences charged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323 and 324 read with Section 149 IPC. Even according to the prosecution, the petitioners did not have a common object to commit any graver offence than the alleged offences as aforesaid. I have already adverted to the circumstances for charging the petitioners under Section 308 IPC. Offence ounder Section 323 IPC is compoundable in terms of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Considering the aforesaid circumstances and the nature of the injuries sustained by respondents 2 to 4 as also the affidavits sworn in respectively by respondents 2 to 4 to the effect that they got no **Crl.M.C.1538/13** 4 objection in quashing the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners I find no reason to decline exercise of inherent jurisdiction to terminate the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. Inclusion of non-compoundable offences by itself is no reason to decline exercise of the inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex court in **B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003 (2) KLT 1062 (SC)).** The circumstances obtained in this case as expatiated above, would reveal that no fruitful purpose could be served by compelling continuance of criminal proceedings against the petitioners and in fact, continuance of such proceedings against the petitioners pursuant to Annexure-A has become absolutely unnecessary. In such circumstances, taking note of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex court in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab** reported in [ **2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)],** I am of the view that it is only appropriate for this Court to prevent continuation of criminal proceedings based on Annexure-A, against the petitioners. In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure-A charge sheet laid in crime No.498 of 2012 of Sasthamkotta Police Station and all **Crl.M.C.1538/13** 5 further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners in C.P.No.135 of 2012 pending before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sasthamkotta are hereby quashed. **Sd/C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)** **spc/** **Crl.M.C.1538/13** 6 **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **JUDGMENT September, 2010** # **Crl.M.C.1538/13** 7