CRL.MC NO. 4227 OF 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Ziyad Rahman A.A.
Judgment Date: 2022-07-13
Court Decision / Holding: This CRL.M.C is allowed; Annexure-2 final report submitted in Crime No.176/2010 and all further proceedings in CC 291/2015, including the judgment in Annexure-1, are quashed.
Final Disposition: CRL.MC allowed; quashing of Annexure-2 final report and all further proceedings in CC 291/2015 and the judgment therein.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

ABIN KUMAR
BINEESH
RAMESH
SAJILLAL
JAYAN

Respondents

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA
STATION HOUSE OFFICER MUNAMBAM POLICE STATION, MUNAMBAM ERNAKULAM
SASI S/O NARAYANAN

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K. Biju

Counsels for Respondents

• M. P. Prashanth (Sr PP)
• K. R. Sajith

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (CRL.MC 4227/2022) before the Kerala High Court, decided by a single-judge bench headed by Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. on 13 July 2022. The petitioners, accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 to 6 in Crime No. 176/2010 of Munambam Police Station, were tried in CC 291/2015 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Njarakkal for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323 and 324 read with Section 149 IPC. The trial court found the petitioners guilty for these offences and imposed imprisonment for three months on each count, while the 3rd accused was acquitted. The crux of the petition is a prayer to quash Annexure-1 judgment and Annexure-2 final report in light of a genuine settlement between the parties, arguing that the dispute is private in nature with no public interest involved. The State and the 3rd respondent (defacto complainant) support the settlement, which is corroborated by a sworn affidavit and verified by the local SHO as genuine. The court cites Ramgopal v The State of Madhya Pradesh (2021 5 KLT 601) and Soban v State of Kerala (2021 3 KHC 383), noting that where a genuine settlement exists, it can exercise its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings. On these facts, the court allows the CRL.MC and quashes the final report and all further proceedings in CC 291/2015, thereby terminating the case between the parties.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 143 IPCSection 147 IPCSection 148 IPCSection 341 IPCSection 323 IPCSection 324 IPC read with Section 149 IPCSection 482 Cr.P.C.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that a genuine settlement has arrived between the parties; the dispute is private in nature with no public interest; relying on Ramgopal v State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) 5 KLT 601 and Soban v State of Kerala (2021) 3 KHC 383, they seek quashing of Annexure-1 judgment and Annexure-2 final report and all further proceedings in CC 291/2015 under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents supported the settlement and evidenced the genuineness of the compromise; the de facto complainant’s affidavit and police verification corroborate the private nature of the dispute; no public interest is involved.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramgopal v The State Of Madhya Pradesh	2021 (5) KLT 601	Positive	Cited to support the High Court’s power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings where there is a genuine settlement.
Soban v State of Kerala	2021 (3) KHC 383	Positive	Cited as another precedent recognizing quashing in private settlement contexts.

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 13[TH] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 4227 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 291/2015 OF TEMPORARY JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, NJARAKKAL** ## **PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO.1,2 AND 4 TO 6:** 1 ABIN KUMAR, S/O BALAKRISHNAN AGED 36 YEARS ALINGAL HOUSE, WEST OF KOVILAKATHUMKADAVU, PALLIPPURAM KARA, PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE., PIN - 682508 2 BINEESH, S/O PETHAMPARAN AGED 42 YEARS KADUVANGUSSERRY HOUSE, WEST OF KOVILAKATHUMKADAVU, PALLIPPURAM KARA, PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE., PIN - 682508 3 RAMESH, S/O LAKSHMANAN AGED 44 YEARS THAIKKOOTTATHIL HOUSE, PALLIPPURAM KARA, PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE, PIN - 682508 4 SAJILLAL, S/O SOMAN AGED 38 YEARS KAKKANAD HOUSE, PALLIPPURAM KARA, PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE , PIN - 682508 5 JAYAN, S/O LAKSHMANAN AGED 56 YEARS THAIKKOOTTATHIL HOUSE, PALLIPPURAM KARA, PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE, PIN - 682508 BY ADV K.BIJU ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER MUNAMBAM POLICE STATION, MUNAMBAM ERNAKULAM, PIN ## **CRL.MC NO. 4227 OF 2022** -: 2 :- - 683515 3 SASI, S/O NARAYANAN AGED 56 YEARS ALIKAL HOUSE, PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE,, PIN - 682508 BY ADV K.R.SAJITH ADV. M. P. PRASHANT- SR PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: **CRL.MC NO. 4227 OF 2022** -: 3 :- ## **ORDER** Petitioners are the accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 6 in Crime No.176/2010 of Munambam Police Station, which was tried by Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Njarakkal as C.C.No.291/2015. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323 and 324 r/w Section 149 of IPC. 2. The prosecution case is that, on 28/02/2010 at 6.00 pm, the petitioners along with other accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly in prosecution of their common object and assaulted the 3[rd] respondent herein, after wrongfully restraining him. Annexure-2 is the FIR and Annexure-3 is the final report submitted by the Police. 3. The trial was conducted by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Njarakkal and it culminated in Annexure-1 judgment by which the petitioners herein were **CRL.MC NO. 4227 OF 2022** **==> picture [66 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** found guilty for the aforesaid offences and they were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months each for the offence punishable under Section 143 of IPC, simple imprisonment for a period of three months each for the offence punishable under Section 147 IPC, simple imprisonment for a period of three months each for the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC, simple imprisonment for a period of three months each for the offence punishable under Section 341 IPC, simple imprisonment for a period of three months each for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and simple imprisonment for a period of three months each for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. The 3[rd] accused was found not guilty and he was acquitted. 4. Challenging the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence, the petitioners have filed Criminal Appeal No.126/ 2021 which is now pending before VI[th] Additional District and Sessions Court, Ernakulam. ## **CRL.MC NO. 4227 OF 2022** -: 5 :- 5. This Crl.M.C is filed by the petitioners, seeking to quash Annexure-1 judgment and all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-2 final report on the ground that the dispute between the parties has been settled. 6. Heard Sri.K.Biju, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.M.P.Prashanth, the Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and Sri.K.R.Raghu, the learned counsel for 3[rd] respondent/defacto complainant. 7. The question whether the criminal prosecution against the accused can be quashed at post conviction stage was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in **Ramgopal vs The State Of Madhya** **Pradesh** 2021 (5) KLT 601. After considering all the relevant aspects, it was held that, if there is a genuine settlement between the parties, the powers of this Court can be exercised for quashing the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The aforesaid view is taken by this ## **CRL.MC NO. 4227 OF 2022** -: 6 :- Court in **Soban Vs State of Kerala** 2021 (3) KHC 383 as well. 8. In the light of legal principles set out, as per the decisions mentioned above, the prayer sought for by the petitioners can be considered. It is found that a genuine settlement has been arrived at between the parties. 9. It is discernible from the records, to substantiate the settlement between the parties, Annexure-4 affidavit sworn by the 3[rd] respondent /defacto complainant has been produced wherein the settlement between the parties has been asserted. The learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant also confirms the same. In addition to that, the veracity of the settlement has been verified by the Station House Officer and it was found that a genuine settlement has indeed arrived at between the parties. 10. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the **CRL.MC NO. 4227 OF 2022** **==> picture [66 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** dispute between the parties are private in nature and no public interest is involved. In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to deny the prayer sought for by the petitioners while invoking the powers of this Court. In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed, Annexure-2 final report submitted in Crime No.176/2010 and all further proceedings in C.C.No.291/2015, including the judgment passed therein by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Njarakkal as per Annexure-1, are hereby quashed. Sd/- **ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE** rpk **CRL.MC NO. 4227 OF 2022** -: 8 :- ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4227/2022** PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN CC 291/2015 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, NJARAKKAL. Annexure2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 176/2010 OF MUNAMBAM POLICE STATION. Annexure3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 176/2010 OF MUNAMBAM POLICE STATION. Annexure 4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPROMISE AFFIDAVIT DATED 21.06.2022 OF THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT.