Crl.M.C. No.2398 of 2008

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: R. Basant
Judgment Date: 2008-08-28
Court Decision / Holding: This Crl.M.C. is allowed. CC No.811/07 pending before JFMC-I, Thiruvananthapuram against the petitioners and other co-accused is quashed. Proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C, if any, pending against the petitioners and co-accused or their sureties shall be disposed of in accordance with law.
Final Disposition: Allowed; CC No.811/07 quashed; 446 Cr.P.C proceedings to be disposed of as per law.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Thomas Antony
Vinul Venugopal
Jerin J. Podippara
Anoop Sasi
Nittu Ravi Abraham

Respondents

The State of Kerala represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
Vishnu Sankar, S/O Narayanan Potti
Akhil Anilkumar, S/O Anil Kumar
Bijoy, S/O Nandanam
Hafiz Shabeer, S/O Jamaludeen
Jithin
Krishnan
Mujeeb Ali

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri Suman Chakravarthy

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Gikku Jacob, Advocate for The State of Kerala
• Sri M.R. Rajesh, Advocate for Vishnu Sankar (R2) and Addl. Res. 3-8

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C. No.2398 of 2008) before the Kerala High Court concerns a request to quash CC No.811/2007 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, I, Thiruvananthapuram. Accused 1, 2 and 6–8 seek exercise of the court's inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the disputes with the seven injured have been amicably settled and that the substantive offences, except sections 143 and 147 IPC, are compoundable. The State, and the seven victims (respondents 2–8) have appeared through counsel and affidavits, stating no objection to quashing and supporting settlement. The final report had already been filed and charges were framed under sections 143, 147, 341, 323 and 427 read with 149 IPC, with a counter case withdrawn. The court relies on the Supreme Court's Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008) to emphasize that ground realities and judicial economy must govern proceedings and that unnecessary continuance should be discouraged. On this basis, the court holds this is a fit case to quash and directs that CC No. 811/07 be quashed against the petitioners and co-accused, with any pending Section 446 Cr.P.C proceedings to be disposed of as law requires. The order underscores settlement and the prudent use of inherent power to end litigation. The judgment reflects a cautious attempt to balance substantive law with equitable resolution among the parties.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 143 IPCSection 147 IPCSection 341 IPCSection 323 IPCSection 427 read with 149 IPCSection 149 IPCSection 482 Cr.P.CSection 446 Cr.P.C

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that, in light of a harmonious settlement with the seven injured and the fact that the substantive offences (except 143 and 147 IPC) are compoundable, the proceedings should be quashed under the extraordinary inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., following the authority of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab. They emphasise judicial economy, avoidance of unnecessary litigation, and the need to bring the disputes to an amicable end without undue delay.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents, through affidavits filed on their behalf, state that there is a harmonious settlement and no objection to quashing the proceedings against all accused. They contend that continuing the proceedings would be unnecessary and that the quashing is appropriate given the settlement and the lack of objection by the victims.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab	AIR 2008 SCW 2287	Positive	The court follows the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot (Supra) to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash proceedings in the interests of justice and to discourage unnecessary continuation, recognizing ground realities and settlement.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2008 / 6TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2398 of 2008() ------------------------CC.811/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED 1 & 2, 6 TO 8: ---------------------------------- 1. THOMAS ANTONY, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS ANTONY, "JEENA NIVAS", VINAYAKA NAGAR. KALLAMPALLI, ULLOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. VINUL VENUGOPAL, S/O.VENUGOPAL, AGED 22 YEARS, "VEENUS HOUSE", CHEVAYOOR ROAD, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM. 3. JERIN.J.PODIPPARA, S/O.JOSE IMMANUEAL PODDIPPARA, AGED 23 YEARS, NEAR CARMEL SCHOOL, WEST KANJIKUZHY, MUTTAMBALAM, KOTTAYAM. 4. ANOOP SASI, S/O.SASIDHARAN,AGED 22 YEARS - "PRATHEESKHA", NEAR ANGANVADI, ELAYAVOOR SOUTH, KANNUR. 5. NITTU RAVI ABRAHAM, S/O.RAVI ABRAHAM, AGED 22 YEARS, 'KARINJATTIL HOUSE', TC 10/972(4), H.NO.83, BENEDICT NAGAR, NALANCHIRA, ULLOOR. BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY RESPONDENTS: - ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. VISHNU SANKAR, S/O.NARAYANAN POTTI, AGED 24 YEARS, PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT KALIYIKKAL MADOM (H), PALACE WARD, KRISHNAPURAM, MUKKADA, KAYAMKULAM ALAPPUZHA DIST. AND NOW EMPLOYED AT BANGALORE. - ADDL. 3. AKHIL ANILKUMAR, S/O.ANILKUMAR, AGED 22 YEARS, “INDEEPURAM(H), MOOTHAKUNNAM, NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM(CW2). Crl.MC.No. 2398 of 2008() - 2 - ADDL. 4. BIJOY, S/O.NANDANAN, VELIKKAL HOUSE, MAANKAV, CALICUT (CW3). - ADDL. 5. HAFIZ SHABEER, S/O.JAMALUDEEN, “MANIYARATHIL” HOUSE, MANGADA DESOM, MALAPPURAM (CW4). ADDL. 6. JITHIN, “SOUPARNIKA HOUSE”, KP 10.386, KAKKODI KIZHAKKUMMURI, CALICUT (CW5). - ADDL. 7. KRISHNAN, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN, “HEMALAYAM HOUSE” PLOT NO.L5/24, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR, ERNAKULAM (CW6). - ADDL 8. MUJEEB ALI, S/O.AMEED ALI, CHUNKATH HOUSE, THEKKEKKARA, PATTITHARA VILLAGE, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT (CW7). (Addl. Respondents 3 to 8 are impleaded as per order dt.28.08.08 in Crl.M.Appl.No.4534 of 2008) BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB ADV. SRI.M.R.RAJESH FOR R2 SRI.M.R.RAJESH FOR ADDL.RES.3 TO 8 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## **R.BASANT, J.** **----------------------** Crl.M.C.No.2398 of 2008 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 28[th] day of August 2008 ## **O R D E R** The petitioners herein are accused 1,2 and 6 to 8 in C.C.No.811/2007 pending before the JFMC-I, Thiruvananthapuram. Altogether there are eight accused persons in that crime. Altogether there are seven injured persons also in that crime. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. Charges are raised under Sections 143,147,341,323 and 427 read with 149 I.P.C. There was a case and a counter case. The counter case has already been withdrawn by the Government, it is submitted. It is at this stage that the petitioners have come before this court with a prayer that C.C.No.811/07 pending before the JFMC-I, Thiruvananthapuram may be quashed invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C as enabled by the dictum in **Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [2008 AIR** **SCW 2287]** . The second respondent is the de facto complainant. All the seven injured persons/victims have been brought on the array as respondents 2 to 8. The petitioners, along with respondents 2 to 8 report to the court that the Crl.M.C.No.2398/08 2 disputes between them have been settled amicably and that respondents 2 to 8 do not want any further proceedings against the petitioners or the other accused to continue. All the substantive offences alleged are compoundable. Except the allegations raised under Sections 143 and 147 I.P.C, all other offences are compoundable. Of course, vicarious liability is alleged invoking Section 149 I.P.C. 2. The respondents have entered appearance through counsel. They have filed affidavits which are numbered as Annexures B to H. The learned counsel on their behalf asserts that respondents 2 to 8 have no objection whatsoever against the quashing of proceedings against all accused persons invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. I am satisfied from the averments in the Crl.M.C as also the affidavits filed by respondents 2 to 8 as Annexures B to H that there has been a harmonious settlement of the disputes between the parties. If legally permissible and possible, I am satisfied that the composition can be accepted and unnecessary continuation of the further proceedings against the petitioners and the other coaccused can be brought to termination. 4. Though the offences under Sections 143 and 147 are not compoundable, I am satisfied that the dictum in **Madan Mohan** Crl.M.C.No.2398/08 3 (Supra) can safely be invoked. That decision is authority for the proposition that an unnecessary technical view should not be taken by courts in situations like this. Ground realities must be taken note of. Unnecessary and non-productive continuation of the proceedings must be discouraged. The judicial time must be put to optimum and profitable use. Bearing in mind the principles in the dictum in **Madan Mohan** (Supra), I am persuaded to agree that this is an eminently fit case where powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C can safely be invoked to quash C.C.No.811/07 pending before the J.F.M.C-I, Thiruvananthapuram against the petitioners herein as also the other accused. 5. In the result, a) This Crl.M.C is allowed. b) C.C.No.811/07 pending before the J.F.M.C-I, Thiruvananthapuram against the petitioners and the other three coaccused is hereby quashed. c) Proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C, if any pending against the petitioners and the co-accused or their sureties shall be disposed of in accordance with law. ## **(R.BASANT, JUDGE)** jsr Crl.M.C.No.2398/08 4 Crl.M.C.No.2398/08 5 ## **R.BASANT, J.** CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008