CRL.M.C. No. 2335 of 2022 (Kerala High Court)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A.
Judgment Date: 2022-05-25
Court Decision / Holding: This Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings in S.C.No.29/2017 pending before the Assistant Sessions Court, Thrissur, arising out of Crime No.1799/2016 of Thrissur West Police Station, are hereby quashed.
Final Disposition: Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

MAJO
SREERAJ
SUJEESH
RIJO DOMY
NITHIN
DIJONES VARGHESE
ABHIJITH
ANEEs AHMED
SAFTHAR SHEREEF
JAYAKRISHNAN
ARJUN
ASWIN

Respondents

STATE OF KERALA
Vishnu Prasad V. Menon
Sarath Sasidharan
Gokul K.S
S.S. Vishnu
Janeesh O.J
Jerome Bernard

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Mansoor Ali

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Hrithwik C. S.
• Sri. R. Mahesh Menon
• Sri. Achuth Kylas
• Sri. Deago John K

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Criminal Misc. Case is heard by a Single Judge of the Kerala High Court, challenging the final report in SC No.29/2017 arising from Crime No.1799/2016 of Thrissur West Police Station. The petitioners (12 accused students) seek quashing of the continued criminal proceedings on grounds that the dispute with respondents 2–7 is private and has been settled, as evidenced by affidavits in which the respondents express no grievances and no objection to quashing. The prosecution alleges offences under IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326 and 308 read with 149, arising from a 21.07.2016 incident on the Government Law College campus involving political rivalry between student factions. The court observes that the dispute is private, the injuries were not serious, and the petitioners were young at the time. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another, the court invokes its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings to avoid fruitless prosecution and to give effect to the settlement. It notes the setting is on private conduct and that continuing proceedings would not serve public interest. Consequently, the petition is allowed and all further proceedings in SC No.29/2017 are quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326, 308 read with Section 149Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Gian Singh doctrine (power of High Court to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in cases involving settlement of private disputes)
Public interest vs. private settlement distinction in quashing cases

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that the dispute with the respondents is fundamentally private and has already been settled, as demonstrated by affidavits from respondents 2–7 stating they have no subsisting grievances and no objection to quashing the proceedings. Given the private nature of the allegations and lack of serious injuries, continuing prosecution serves little purpose. Drawing on the Gian Singh doctrine, they contend that the High Court should invoke its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash SC No.29/2017 to avoid fruitless litigation and respect the settlement.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents 2–7 affirm the settlement and consent to quashing; they confirm no grievances remain. Their affidavits and consent are cited to support the petition. The respondents' counsel and the Public Prosecutor acknowledge the private nature of the dispute and emphasize the need to avoid a fruitless trial where settlement has been achieved. The court should exercise caution, but in light of settlement and lack of public interest, quashing is appropriate.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another	2012(4)KLT 108	Positive	The court relies on Gian Singh to exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings in cases involving private settlements.

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.** **WEDNESDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF MAY 2022 / 4TH JYAISHTA, 1944** **CRL.MC NO. 2335 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE PROCEEDINGS IN SC 29/2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ASSISTANT** **SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.1799 OF 2016 OF** **THRISSUR WEST POLICE STATION** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 12:** - **1 MAJO AGED 28 YEARS S/O. JOHNY, CHITTILAPPILLY HOUSE, NEAR ADATT CONVENT, ADATT VILLAGE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680551** - **2 SREERAJ AGED 28 YEARS S/O. DEVARAJAN MEPPURATHU VEEDU, ELAMBAZHANNOOR DESOM, ITTIVA VILLAGE, KOLLAM, PIN - 691536** - **3 SUJEESH AGED 34 YEARS S/O.GANGADHARAN KOKKATHU VEEDU, POTHANKAD DESOM, KALPETTI P.O, KUZHALMANDAM, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678702** - **4 RIJO DOMY AGED 28 YEARS S/O.DOMY PEKKAL VEEDU, KAVAKKAD DESOM, ENANELLOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686673** - **5 NITHIN AGED 31 YEARS S/O.ASHOKAN OLLUR, GRAMODHARANA ROAD, OLLUR VILLAGE, OLLUR DESOM, PIN - 680306** - **6 DIJONES VARGHESE AGED 29 YEARS S/O.VARGHESE VADAKKETHALA VEEDU, ERUMAPPETTI, THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680584** - **7 ABHIJITH AGED 29 YEARS S/O.NARAYANAN KAKKAMADA VEEDU, CHENGANIYUR KAVU DESOM, MATHUR VILLAGE,MATHUR AGRAHARAM P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN - 678571** CRL.M.C.NO.2335 OF 2022 2 - **8 ANEES AHMED AGED 27 YEARS S/O.ABBAS THERIL VEEDU, VATTAKALLU DESOM, OLLUKARA VILLAGE, PATTIKAD P.O, NEAR MASJID, THRISSUR, PIN - 680652** - **9 SAFTHAR SHEREEF AGED 26 YEARS S/O.HUSSAIN ROSHNI VEEDU, KALLEKAD DESOM, PIRAYIRI VILLAGE, NEAR A.R CAMP, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678004** - **10 JAYAKRISHNAN AGED 26 YEARS S/O.VIJAYAN NAIR PANANGAD VEEDU, KADAKARAPPILLY P.O., NEAR ARTHUNGAL, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA, , PIN - 688529** - **11 ARJUN AGED 29 YEARS S/O.GIRIJAVALLABHAN PARAMJYOTHI KIZHAKKETHIL VEEDU, IYYAL PARAPPURAM DESOM, IYYAL VILLAGE, PANNITHADAM, KECHERI, PIN - 680501** - **12 ASWIN AGED 30 YEARS S/O.RAMACHANDRAN ASWATHI VEEDU, THEKKUMBHAGAM, THRIPPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM, NADAMA VILLAGE, PIN - 682301 BY ADV MANSOOR ALI** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE&COMPLAINANT:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, NEAR MARINE DRIVE, PIN - 682031** - **2 VISHNU PRASAD V. MENON AGED 28 YEARS S/O.VIDHYADHARAN KOLOTH HOUSE, OLLARIKARA DESOM, PULLAZHI P.O, ARANATTUKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680012** - **3 SARATH SASIDHARAN AGED 25 YEARS S/O.V.N.SASIDHARAN VELLARAMKUNNEL HOUSE, PEROOR P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686637** - **4 GOKUL K.S AGED 28 YEARS S/O.SIVARAMAN KATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, ANANDAPURAM, P.O, NELLAYI DESOM,** CRL.M.C.NO.2335 OF 2022 3 **IRINJALAKUDA TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680308 5 S.S. VISHNU AGED 28 YEARS S/O.SASIDHARAN PILLAI SREYAS HOUSE, VAKAYIL ROAD, CHIYYARAM P.O, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680026 6 JANEESH O.J AGED 32 YEARS S/O.O.C.JANARANJANA (LATE) ODASSERY HOUSE, KUZHUR P.O, KAKULISSERY VILLAGE, CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680734 7 JEROME BERNARD AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.BERNARD JAMES, ALOOR HOUSE, NELLUVAI DESOM, KUTTENCHERY P.O, PAZHUVIL VILLAGE, THALAPILLI TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680584 BY ADVS. SRI.HRITHWIK C. S., SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.R.MAHESH MENON SRI.ACHUTH KYLAS SRI.DEAGO JOHN K** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON** **25.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** CRL.M.C.NO.2335 OF 2022 4 ## **ORDER** ## **Dated this the 25[th] day of May, 2022** The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.1799/2016 of Thrissur West Police Station which is now pending as S.C. No.29/2017 before the Assistant Sessions Court, Thrissur. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326, and 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. The prosecution case is that, on 21.07.2016 at about 3.15 pm, the petitioners who were the students in Government Law College, Ayyanthole assaulted respondents 2 to 7 in a scuffle which occurred on account of political rivalry between two factions of students. Annexure-1 is the F.I.R. and Annexure-2 is the final report submitted by the police. This Crl.M.C. is filed for quashing all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-2 final report. CRL.M.C.NO.2335 OF 2022 5 3. Heard Sri. Mansoor Ali, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. C. S. Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1[st] respondent and Sri. R. Mahesh Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 7. 4. The prayer for quashing the proceedings sought mainly for the reason that the dispute between the parties have been settled and to substantiate the same, Annexure-3 affidavit sworn by respondent No.2, Annexure-4 affidavit sworn by respondent No.3, Annexure-5 affidavit sworn by respondent No.4, Annexure-6 affidavit sworn by respondent No.5, Annexure-7 affidavit sworn by respondent No.6 and Annexure-8 affidavit sworn by respondent No.7 are produced. The fact of settlement is acknowledged in the aforesaid affidavits and it is also explicitly stated that the respondents 2 to 7 have no subsisting grievances against the petitioners herein. Respondents 2 to 7 also clearly expressed their no objection in quashing the proceedings CRL.M.C.NO.2335 OF 2022 6 against the petitioners. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 7 also confirms the aforesaid settlement and supports the prayer sought for by the petitioners herein. 5. On going through the nature of allegations as contained in Annexure-2 final report, it can be seen that the dispute is basically private in nature. No serious offences are attributed against the petitioners. 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 is 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 offences under Section 326 and 308 are also alleged. However, on going through the CRL.M.C.NO.2335 OF 2022 7 documents perused, it can be seen that the incident occurred on a college campus and all the parties were students. The incident occurred in 2016 and now all the disputes between them are settled. It is also discernible from the records that the injuries sustained by the victims are not so serious as to cause any physical disablement. Considering the young age of the petitioners at the relevant time and also taking into account the prospects of their future, some indulgence can be shown in this case. Therefore, I am inclined to invoke the powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings in S.C.No.29/2017 pending before the Assistant Sessions Court, Thrissur, pursuant to Crime No.1799/2016 of Thrissur West Police Station, are hereby quashed. **Sd/ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE** SKP/25.05 CRL.M.C.NO.2335 OF 2022 8 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2335/2022** |**PETITIONERS'**|**ANNEXURES:NIL**| |---|---| |**ANNEXURE1**|**THE TRUE COPY OF F.I.R. NO. 1799 OF 2016**| ||**DATED 22.07.2016 OF THRISSUR WEST POLICE**| ||**STATION**| |**ANNEXURE2**|**CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN S.C. NO.**| ||**29/2017DATED 21.10.2016 ARISING OUT OF**| ||**CRIME NO.1799 OF 2016 PENDING BEFORE**| ||**HON'BLE II-ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR**| |**ANNEXURE3**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY THE**| ||**2ND RESPONDENT DATED 01.02.2022**| |**ANNEXURE4**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY THE**| ||**3RD RESPONDENT DATED 01.02.2022**| |**ANNEXURE5**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY THE**| ||**4TH RESPONDENT DATED 01.02.2022**| |**ANNEXURE6**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY THE**| ||**5TH RESPONDENT DATED 01.02.2022**| |**ANNEXURE7**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY THE**| ||**6TH RESPONDENT DATED 01.02.2022**| |**ANNEXURE8**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY THE**| ||**7TH RESPONDENT DATED 01.02.2022**| **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:NIL** **TRUE COPY** **P.A.TO JUDGE**