High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-09-29Petition allowed; FIR No. 247/2016 and all proc...

Crl.M.C. No. 6140 of 2016

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C. No. 6140 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date: 2016-09-29
Court Decision / Holding: This petition under Section 482 CrPC is allowed; the FIR in Crime No. 247/2016 of the Sreekaryam Police Station and all proceedings arising therefrom against the petitioners are quashed.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; FIR No. 247/2016 and all proceedings thereunder are quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

SREEHARI
INDRAJITH
AKSSHYLOHI
SREENATH
NASHID V.P.
SIDHARATH V.
RAMESH P.V.

Respondents

State of Kerala, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Vishnu A.V.
Jayakrishnan

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ
• SRI.P.T.SHEEJISH

Counsels for Respondents

• SRI.AJOY VENU

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a criminal miscellaneous case under section 482 CrPC in the Kerala High Court, wherein seven petitioners approach the court seeking to quash Crime No. 247/2016 registered at the Sreekaryam Police Station for offences under sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 326 and 308 IPC. The FIR alleges that on 28 February 2016, at about 6:00 pm, the petitioners formed an unlawful assembly, criminally restrained respondents 2 and 3, and assaulted them with dangerous weapons, causing injuries. The petitioners and respondents 2 and 3 are college students; the incident reportedly arose during a college program at the College of Engineering, Trivandrum. The parties claim they have settled all disputes and wish to live in peace, asking the court to quash the proceedings in light of this settlement. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about using the extraordinary powers under Section 482, noting that such power is not ordinarily invoked in cases with serious societal impact, though no other cases against the petitioners are reported. Relying on Supreme Court jurisprudence, including Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, the court notes that 482 CrPC quashing is permissible in cases with private settlement and civil flavour, but not for crimes against society. The court also references Narinder Singh and Rajesh Kamath J. and Others v. Mohana Kurup as guidelines. Considering the non-grave nature of the offence and the settlement, the court invokes 482 CrPC to quash the FIR and all proceedings, allowing the petition.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 326 and 308 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)Section 320 CrPC

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that the dispute had been resolved amicably and that the criminal proceedings should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC in light of the settlement between the parties. They argued that the offences, though punishable under IPC sections cited in the FIR, involve a private disagreement with no ongoing threat to society, and that maintaining the proceedings would cause oppression and prejudice to the petitioners given the settlement and the peaceful resolution of the dispute. They relied on the broad scope of the High Court's inherent revisional power under 482 CrPC as laid down in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, and cited the Supreme Court guidelines in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab and in Rajesh Kamath J. and Others v. Mohana Kurup and Others as supportive. The essence of their case rests on the private, civil-flavour nature of the dispute and the public interest in avoiding a futile, protracted prosecution where settlement exists.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents, represented by the Public Prosecutor and counsel for the private respondents, urged caution in invoking the extraordinary power under Section 482 CrPC. They argued that quashing a criminal case must be guarded and not used merely to shield private disputes if the offences have weighty or societal implications. While acknowledging a private settlement in some contexts, they contended that Section 482 powers are not unlimited and should not undermine the possibility of conviction in more serious cases. The advocate for respondents did not oppose settlement per se, but urged the court to weigh the gravity of the alleged offences (armed assault, use of weapons, and injuring others) against the private settlement. The position was that the court should exercise restraint and resist unnecessary quashing where the public interest and societal safety may be at risk, notwithstanding the private settlement.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another	2012 (10) SCC 303	Positive	The Supreme Court held that 482 CrPC quashing is permissible for disputes resolved by private settlement in cases with civil flavour, while excluding crimes against society; the Kerala High Court relied on this principle to exercise its power.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	2014 (6) SCC 466	Mentioned Only	Cited as a guideline in relation to the discretionary use of 482 CrPC; the judgment references the principles but does not explicitly state its adoption in the factual scenario.
Rajesh Kamath J. and Others v. Mohana Kurup and Others	AIR 2016 SC 2452	Mentioned Only	Cited among Supreme Court guidelines on settlement and quashing; treated as guiding authority rather than a direct declarative proposition in this case.

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. 6140 of 2016 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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/7TH ASWINA, 1938 Crl.MC.No. 6140 of 2016 () ---------------------------** **CRIME NO. 247/2016 OF SREEKARIYAM POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANDAPURAM** **PETITIONER(S):** **-------------** **1. SREEHARI, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT KARUPPATHU HOUSE, NEAR CIVIL STATION, CHAMMANKADAVU, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 504.** **2. INDRAJITH, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.T.N.SURESH BABU, DEEPTHI VILASOM, MAILACKAL, PLACHERY P.O., PATHANAPURAM TALUK, PUNALUR, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 305.** **3. AKSSHYLOHI, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.LOHITHAKSHAN N.K., RESIDING AT AKSHY VILLAH, KARAKALIPARAMBU, MANNUR P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 328.** **4. SREENATH, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.SUKUMARAN, RESIDING AT PODIYARA HOUSE, ANANDASRAM VIA BELUR VILLAGE, ATTENGANAM P.O., KASARAGODE DISTRICT, PIN - 671 531.** **CONTD...** **:2:** **5. NASHID V.P., AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.NAZAR, RESIDING AT KANIYARPOYIL HOUSE, KODUVALLY P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 572.** **6. SIDHARTH V., AGED 20 YEARS, RESIDING AT PUTHENPURAYIL AREINKAVU VILLAGE, ACHANKOVIL P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691 308.** **7. RAMESH P.V., AGED 19 YEARS, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, RESIDING AT PANATTIL HOUSE, THEKUNGKARA VILLAGE, KUNDUKAD P.O., THRISSUR, PIN - 680 028.** **BY ADVS.SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ SRI.P.T.SHEEJISH** **RESPONDENT(S):** ## **--------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA,** - **REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.** **2. VISHNU A.V., AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.VIJAYAKUMAR, RESIDING AT USHAS, PATTENA, NEELESHVARAM P.O., KASARGOD, PIN - 671 314.** **3. JAYAKRISHNAN,** **AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.JAYACHANDRAN, RESIDING AT REVATHY HOUSE, PALLIKATHODE, ARUVIKKUZHI P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 503.** **R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.AJOY VENU** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **CONTD...** **:3:** **Crl.MC.No. 6140 of 2016 () ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-----------------------** **ANNEXURE A. CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO:247/2016, OF THE SREEKARYAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147,148, 149, 326 AND 308 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE.** **ANNEXURE A. THE AFFIDAVIT SOLEMNLY AFFIRMED BY THE RESPONDENTS 2 TO 3/DEFACTO COMPLAINT VICTIMS.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL** **-----------------------** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **SKS** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## Crl.M.C. No. 6140 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 29[th] September, 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **ORDER** 1.This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Code') has been preferred by the petitioners herein for quashing the proceedings in Crime No.247 of 2016 of the Sreekaryam Police Station. The said crime has been registered at the instance of the 2[nd] respondent herein alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 326 and 308 of the IPC. - 2.The prosecution allegation against the petitioners who are accused Nos. 1 to 7 in the said crime is that on 28.02.2016 at 6.00p.m, the petitioners formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object, criminally restrained the respondents 2 and 3 and assaulted them with dangerous Crl.M.C. No. 6140 of 2016 2 weapons and caused injuries. 3.The respondents 2 and 3 have entered appearance through their counsel. It is submitted that the petitioners and respondents 2 and 3 are students of the College of Engineering, Trivandrum and the incident had occurred in the course of a program conducted in the College. It is submitted that in order to maintain peace and tranquility the parties have buried the hatchet and have decided to settle all the disputes between them and to live in harmony. They assert that they do not wish that the criminal proceedings against the petitioners should continue. - 4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, this Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings. - 5.The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions Crl.M.C. No. 6140 of 2016 3 has expressed his reservations in the matter of quashing the proceedings on the basis of settlement. It is submitted that the invocation of powers under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is not warranted. However, it is submitted that no other cases are reported against the petitioners. 6.In **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another** [2012 (10)SCC 303], the Apex Court has crystalised the position in respect of the powers vested in the High Court under S.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to quash criminal proceedings. It was held that the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is not limited to quashing proceedings within the ambit and scope of Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The three - Judge Bench in the above case, clearly expounded, that quashing of criminal proceedings under S.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, could also be based Crl.M.C. No. 6140 of 2016 4 on settlements between private parties, and could also on a compromise between the offender and the victim. Only that, the above power did not extend to crimes against the society. It is also relevant to mention, that the jurisdiction vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for quashing criminal proceedings, was held to be exercisable in criminal cases having an overwhelming and predominatingly civil flavour, particularly offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership, or such like transactions. Or even offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc. or family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal. In all such cases, the parties should have resolved their entire dispute by themselves, mutually. Further, guidelines were issued by the Apex Court in **Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab** [2014 (6) SCC 466] and recently in **Rajesh Kamath J. and** Crl.M.C. No. 6140 of 2016 5 ## **Others v. Mohana Kurup and Others** [AIR 2016 SC 2452]. 7.I have considered the rival submissions and I have gone through the materials on record. The offence committed by the petitioners cannot be said to be grave and serious having ingredients of extreme mental depravity. It also does not appear that the offence in this case will have a serious impact on the society. More over, when the party respondents have settled the matter, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and the continuation of the criminal case against the petitioners would be a futile exercise. It would also put the petitioners and the party respondents to great oppression and prejudice 8.Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court will be well justified in invoking its extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings. Crl.M.C. No. 6140 of 2016 6 In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A, FIR in Crime No.247 of 2016 of the Sreekaryam Police Station and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners are quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE** SKS //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE