Crl.M.C. No. 1602 of 2013 (Crime No. 293 of 2012, Cherthala Police Station)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. T. Ravikumar
Judgment Date: 2013-04-12
Court Decision / Holding: Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure A-3 final report (crime No. 293/2012) and all further proceedings in C.C. No. 1306/2012 on the files of the Court of JFCM Cherthala are quashed.
Final Disposition: Quashed final report and all further proceedings; petition allowed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

BiJo
Vishnu Prakash
Prabish

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Cherthala Police Station, through Public Prosecutor
Paul C. George

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. John Jude Issac

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. V. S. Ullasnathan
• Smt. Hyma (Public Prosecutor)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This criminal miscellaneous petition arises from Crime No. 293/2012 of Cherthala Police Station, yielding C.C. No. 1306/2012 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Cherthala. The petitioners, three accused (BiJo, Vishnu Prakash, and Prabish), sought to quash the final report (Annexure A-3) and all further proceedings on the strength of a settlement with the de facto complainant (second respondent). Annexures include the FIR, their statements, the charge sheet copy, and an affidavit (Annexure A-4) sworn by the second respondent stating that the entire dispute has been amicably settled and that he does not wish to prosecute; he also endorses the settlement in court. The court notes the offences alleged—sections 451, 341, 323, and 324 read with 34 IPC—and, from the nature of the injuries and the personal, non-heinous character of the acts, finds the continuation of criminal proceedings unnecessary and futile. Relying on the Supreme Court’s Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, the court decides to exercise its inherent power under CrPC 482 to quash the final report and all further proceedings. The petition is allowed, and the proceedings are quashed accordingly.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 451 IPCSection 341 IPCSection 323 IPCSection 324 read with Section 34 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Gian Singh v. State of Punjab — principle allowing quashing of criminal proceedings on grounds of amicable settlement, balancing nature of offence and public interest (CrPC 482)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that the offences are non-heinous and personal in nature, the dispute has been amicably settled with the de facto complainant (second respondent) as per Annexure A-4, and continuing the prosecution would serve no useful purpose given the remote possibility of conviction. On these grounds, they urged quashing of the final report (Annexure A-3) and all further proceedings under CrPC 482.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents acknowledged the settlement and the lack of public interest in prosecuting over a minor, personal dispute. The second respondent, by affidavit (Annexure A-4), stated he does not wish to prosecute and approved quashing; the State's position emphasized considering the non-serious nature of the offence and public interest, aligning with the court’s duty to consider quashing in light of the settlement and Gian Singh principles.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)	Positive	Cited as the guiding principle for quashing criminal proceedings where there is an amicable settlement, balancing with public interest per CrPC 482.

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. 1602 of 2013 () --------------------------CC.1306/2012 of J.M.F.C.-I, CHERTHALA CRIME NO.293 OF 2012 OF CHERTHALA POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: --------------------------- 1. BIJO, AGED 27 YEARS S/O.THOMAS, THEKKE THANNICKAL, KALAVAMKODAM P.O VAYALAR PANCHAYATH, UZHUVA, CHERTHALA 2. VISHNU PRAKASH@VISHNU, AGED 28 YEARS S/O.APPACHAN, MANGALASERI NIKARTHU, KALAVAMKODAM P.O VAYALAR PANCHAYATH, UZHUVA, CHERTHALA 3. PRABISH, AGED 27 YEARS S/O.PRAKASAN, PUTHEN NIKARTHILE HOUSE KALAVAMKODAM P.O, VAYALAR PANCHAYATH, UZHUVA CHERTHALA BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JUDE ISSAC ## RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- 1.STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SUB IONSPECTOR OF POLICE CHERTHALA POLICE STATION THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA , ERNAKULAM - 2.PAUL C.GEORGE, AGED 38 YEARS S/O.K.C GEORGE, NIKARTHIL HOUSE KALAVANKODAM P.O, CHERTHALA R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.S.ULLASNATHAN R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-04-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 1602 of 2013 () --------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: ------------------------------ ANNEXURE A1 :TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R NO 293/2012 DATED 5/3/2012 OF CHERTHALA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A 2 :TRUE COPY OF THE F.I STATEMENT DATED 5/3/2012. ANNEXURE A 3 : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE IM C.C 1306/12. ANNEXURE A4 :TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT DATED 7-4-2013. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:NIL ----------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ========================== CRL.M.C. No.1602 OF 2013 ==========================** Dated this the 12[th] day of April, 2013 ## **ORDER** Petitioners are accused in C.C.No.1306 of 2012 pending on the files of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Cherthala arising from crime No.293 of 2012 of Cherthala Police Station. The said crime was registered alleging commission of offences under sections 451, 341, 323 and 324 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The gist of the allegations against the petitioners is that in furtherance of their common intention to assault second respondent on 29.2.2012 at about 12 'O' clock night in front of the house of the second respondent at Kalavankodam, Nikarthil, the first accused gave a slap on the nose of the second respondent and the second accused wrongfully restrained him. Allegedly, it was a spiteful action from the part of the petitioners to avenge the second respondent's action in questioning the mayhem made by them in front of his house. This **Crl.M.C.1602/13** 2 petition has been filed seeking quashment of Annexure-A3 final report laid in the aforesaid crime and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners in C.C.No.1306 of 2012 pending on the files of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Cherthala on the strength of the settlement arrived at between the petitioners and the defacto complainant viz., the second respondent. Annexure-A4 is the affidavit sworn in by the second respondent to the effect that the entire disputes that constrained the second respondent to lodge complaint against the petitioners that led to the registration of the aforesaid crime has been settled amicably between himself and the petitioners. In the said circumstances, he did not wish to prosecute the petitioners, any further. It is also stated therein that he got no objection in quashing the entire proceedings based on Annexure-A3 in C.C.No.1306 pending on the files of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Cherthala. Pursuant to an order of this Court, the second respondent/defacto complainant appeared in person and he was identified by his counsel and the second respondent endorsed fully the statements in Annexure-A4. **Crl.M.C.1602/13** 3 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor. From the nature of the injuries and allegations, it is evident that the offence committed by the petitioners cannot be categorised as a heinous crime and in fact, it is personal in nature as claimed by the second respondent himself. The rival submissions together with Annexure-A4 affidavit would reveal that the entire lis that led to the registration of the aforesaid crime has been settled amicably between the second respondent and the petitioners. In such circumstances, no meaningful purpose could be served even if the criminal proceedings are compelled to be continued against the petitioners. The chance for a successful prosecution is very remote and bleak. In such circumstances, it is only appropriate for this Court to terminate the proceedings which became absolutely unnecessary going by the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab** reported in [ **2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)].** **Crl.M.C.1602/13** 4 In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure-A3 final report laid in crime No. 293 of 2012 of Cherthala Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant thereto pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.1306 of 2012 on the files of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Cherthala are hereby quashed. **C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)** **spc/** **Crl.M.C.1602/13** 5 **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **JUDGMENT September, 2010** **Crl.M.C.1602/13** 6