High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-05-25The CRL.M.C Nos. 1697/2022 and 4147/2021 are al...

CRL.M.C. Nos. 1697 of 2022 and 4147 of 2021 – Jayan P.K. @ Roy; Sudheesh; Satheesan T.G. vs State of Kerala and others; Hareesh Das vs State of Kerala and others

Case / Petition Number:CRL.M.C. Nos. 1697 of 2022 and 4147 of 2021

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Ziyad Rahman A.A.
Judgment Date: 2022-05-25
Court Decision / Holding: The petitions are allowed; all further proceedings in CC 1808/2017 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court No. I, Ettumanoor, arising from Crime No. 1048/2017, Gandhi Nagar Police Station, are quashed.
Final Disposition: The CRL.M.C Nos. 1697/2022 and 4147/2021 are allowed; all further proceedings in CC 1808/2017 are quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Jayan P.K. @ Roy
Sudheesh
SatheesAn T.G.
Hareesh Das

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by the Inspector of Police, Gandhi Nagar Police Station, Kottayam, PIN – 686008; represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, PIN- 686008
Additional Sub Inspector, Gandhi Nagar Police Station, Kottayam, PIN – 686008; represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Kochi, PIN - 682031
Jovin George S/o George Jobin Bhavan, Kaippillimukku Junction, Edamulackal Village, Kollam District, Kollam City, Kerala, PIN - 691306
Nisha wife of Jovin George Jobin Bhavan, Kaippillimukku Junction, Edamulackal Village, Kollam District, Kollam City, Kerala, PIN - 691306 (also address at Modikizha kkhethil House, Peringala Kara, Mulakkuzha Village, Alappuzha District, PIN - 691306)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sabu John
• Rajeevu L.G.
• G. Bindu Thomas
• Jacob

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Hrithwik C. S., Public Prosecutor
• Smt. Deepa O V., Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

Two Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions (CRL.M.C. Nos. 1697 of 2022 and 4147 of 2021) are before the Kerala High Court seeking to quash proceedings in CC 1808/2017 (Judicial First Class Magistrate Court No. I, Ettumanoor) arising from Crime No. 1048/2017 at Gandhi Nagar Police Station. The petitioners, accused Nos. 1–3 in CRL.M.C.1697/2022 and the 4th accused in CRL.M.C.4147/2021, challenge the continuation of criminal proceedings on the ground that a settlement has been reached with the de facto complainant and his wife, who have sworn affidavits (Annexures A3–A4) acknowledging no remaining grievances. The respondents, including the State represented by the Public Prosecutor and the co-accused, support the settlement and confirm its genuineness after verification. The Court notes that the alleged offences (section 451 trespass, section 294(B) obscenity, section 323 hurt, and section 506(1) criminal intimidation, all read with section 34 IPC) concern a private dispute. It holds that when the dispute is private, and there is a genuine settlement, the likelihood of securing a conviction is bleak and continuing the prosecution would serve no fruitful purpose. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another, the court exercises its inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. and quashes all further proceedings in CC 1808/2017. The petitions are allowed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 451 IPCSection 294(B) IPCSection 323 IPCSection 506(1) read with Section 34 IPCSection 482 Cr.P.C.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another (2012(4)KLT 108) — principle enabling quashing under section 482 Cr.P.C. in private settlement cases; private dispute and settlement can justify quashing when public interest is not served by continuation of prosecution.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants submit that the disputes between the parties have been settled, as evidenced by affidavits from the de facto complainant and his wife (Annexures A3–A4) stating they have no further grievances. The Public Prosecutor verifies the settlement's genuineness after recording the FIs. Given the private nature of the quarrel and lack of public interest in prosecuting, continuing the case would be futile. Relying on Gian Singh, the applicants urge quashing of CC 1808/2017 under section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent harassment and wastage of resources.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents acknowledge the private nature of the dispute and support the settlement. The Public Prosecutor confirms verification of the settlement’s veracity. They contend that where a genuine settlement exists in a private dispute arising from alleged offences, continued prosecution serves little public interest, justifying invocation of the inherent powers to quash under section 482 Cr.P.C.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another	2012(4)KLT 108	Positive	Cited as the controlling authority for exercising the power under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings where there is a genuine settlement of a private dispute and no public interest in continuing the prosecution.

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. Nos. 1697 of 2022 and 4147 of 2021 – Jayan P.K. @ Roy; Sudheesh; Satheesan T.G. vs State of Kerala and others; Hareesh Das vs State of Kerala and others 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 ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.** **WEDNESDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF MAY 2022 / 4TH JYAISHTA, 1944** **CRL.MC NO. 1697 OF 2022** **FROM CC 1808/2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, ETTUMANUR AROSE FROM CRIME NO.1048/2017 OF GANDHI NAGAR POLICE** ## **STATION** ## **PETITIONERS:** |**1**|**JAYAN P.K. @ ROY**| |---|---| ||**AGED 44 YEARS**| ||**VAZHATHURUTHEL HOUSE, NEAR K.E. SCHOOL,**| ||**KUTTIPPADY BHAGAM, MANNANAM KARA,**| ||**ATHIRAMBUZHA VILLAGE, PIN - 686008**| |**2**|**SUDHEESH**| ||**S/O VASUDEVAN**| ||**CHAMAKKALAYIL HOUSE, KOLATTU TEMPLE BHAGAM,**| ||**ARPOOKKARA KARA, ARPOOKKARA VILLAGE,**| ||**KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686008**| |**3**|**SATHEESAN T.G.**| ||**KARIMBALICHIRA HOUSE, ARPOOKKARA P.O.,**| ||**KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686008**| ||**BY ADVS.**| ||**SABU JOHN**| ||**RAJEEVU L.G.**| ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE GANDHINAGAR POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686008 REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN- 686008** - **2 THE ADDITIONAL SUB INSPECTOR GANDHINAGAR POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686 008 REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI, PIN - 682031** - **3 JOVIN GEORGE S/O.GEORGE JOBIN BHAVAN, KAIPPILLIMUKKU JN., EDAMULACKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, KOLLAM CITY, KERALA, PIN - 691306** CRL.M.C.NO.1697 OF 2022 & CRL.M.C.NO.4147 OF 2021 2 **4 NISHA WIFE OF JOVIN GEORGE JOBIN BHAVAN, KAIPPILLIMUKKU JN., EDAMULACKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, KOLLAM CITY, KERALA.PIN-691306 HAVING ALSO ADDRESS AT MODIKIZHAKKETHIL HOUSE, PERINGALA KARA, MULAKKUZHA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 691306 BY ADVS. SRI.HRITHWIK C. S., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.DEEPA O V** ## **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON** **25.05.2022, ALONG WITH CRL.MC.4147/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** CRL.M.C.NO.1697 OF 2022 & CRL.M.C.NO.4147 OF 2021 3 ## **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. 4147 OF 2021** **FROM CC 1808/2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, ETTUMANUR AROSE FROM CRIME NO.1048/2017 OF GANDHI NAGAR POLICE STATION** ## **PETITIONER/4TH ACCUSED:** **HAREESH DAS, AGED 31 YEARS S/O. HARIDAS, VATTAKKALAYIL HOUSE, NEAR PANCHAYAT KINAR, KODIKUTHI KARA, KADUTHURUTHY VILLAGE. BY ADVS. SABU JOHN RAJEEVU L.G. G.BINDU THOMAS JACOB** ## **RESPONDENTS/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.** - **2 THE ADDITIONAL SUB INSPECTOR GANDHI NAGAR POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM-686008.** - **3 JOVIN GEORGE, S/O. GEORGE, JOBIN BHAVAN, KAIPPILLIMUKKU JUNCTION, EDAMULACKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, KOLLAM CITY, KERALA-691306.** **4 NISHA, W/O. JOVIN GEROGE, JOBIN BHAVAN, KAIPPILLIMUKKU JUNCTION, EDAMULACKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, KOLLAM CITY, KERALA-691306 HAVING ALSO ADDRESS AT MODIKIZHAKKETHIL HOUSE, PERINGALA KARA, MULAKKUZHA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.HRITHWIK C. S., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.DEEPA O V** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON** CRL.M.C.NO.1697 OF 2022 & CRL.M.C.NO.4147 OF 2021 4 **25.05.2022, ALONG WITH CRL.MC.1697/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** CRL.M.C.NO.1697 OF 2022 & CRL.M.C.NO.4147 OF 2021 5 ## **ORDER** ## **Dated this the 25[th] day of May, 2022** **[Crl.MC Nos.1697/2022, 4147/2021]** The petitioners in these Crl.M.C’s are the accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Crime No.1048/2017 of Gandhi Nagar Police Station which is now pending as C.C. No.1808/2017 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court No. I, Ettumanoor. The Crl. M.C. No.1697/2022 is filed by accused Nos.1 to 3 whereas, Crl. M.C. No.4147/2021 is filed by the 4[th] accused in the aforesaid crime. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Section 451, 294(B), 323, 506(1) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The allegation is that the accused persons trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant, threatened, abused and assaulted respondents 3 and 4 and thereby committed the offences. Annexure-1 is the FIR and Annexure-A2 is the charge sheet in Crl.MC CRL.M.C.NO.1697 OF 2022 & CRL.M.C.NO.4147 OF 2021 6 1697/2022 and the said documents are produced in Crl.MC No 4147/2021 as Annexure A1 and Annexure A2 respectively. 3. Heard Sri. Sabu John, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. C.S.Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1[st] respondent and Smt. Deepa O.V., the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 4. 4. The prayer for quashing the proceedings is sought mainly because the dispute between the parties has been settled and to substantiate the same, Annexure-3 and Annexure-4 in Crl.M.C are the affidavits sworn by 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents. Annexure-A3 in Crl MC No 4147 of 2021 is the affidavit sworn by the said persons. The fact of settlement is acknowledged in the aforesaid affidavits and it is also explicitly stated that they do not have any subsisting grievances against the petitioners. They also clearly expressed their no objection in CRL.M.C.NO.1697 OF 2022 & CRL.M.C.NO.4147 OF 2021 7 quashing the proceedings against the petitioners. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 4 also confirms the aforesaid settlement and supports the prayer sought for by the petitioners herein. The learned Public Prosecutor upon instructions submits that the veracity of the settlement is verified by recording the statement of de facto complainant and found to be genuine. 5. On going through the nature of allegations as contained in the charge sheet, it can be seen that the dispute is basically private in nature. 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. CRL.M.C.NO.1697 OF 2022 & CRL.M.C.NO.4147 OF 2021 8 Accordingly, the Crl. M.C. Nos.1697/2022 and 4147 of 2021 are allowed. All further proceedings in C.C. No.1808/2017 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court No.I, Ettumanoor, pursuant to Crime No.1048/2017 of Gandhi Nagar Police Station, are hereby quashed. **Sd/-** **ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE** SKP/25.05 CRL.M.C.NO.1697 OF 2022 & CRL.M.C.NO.4147 OF 2021 9 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4147/2021** **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE FIR NO.1048/2017 OF THE GANDHI NAGAR POLICE STATION DATED 19/06/2017 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, ETTUMANOOR. ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CC NO.1808/2017 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT NO.I, ETTUMANOOR. ANNEXURE A3 THE AFFIDAVIT GIVEN BY THE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT AND HIS WIFE IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER DATED 14/08/2021. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:NIL** CRL.M.C.NO.1697 OF 2022 & CRL.M.C.NO.4147 OF 2021 10 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1697/2022** |**PETITIONERS'**|**ANNEXURES:**| |---|---| |**ANNEXURE1**|**CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR NO.1048/2017 OF**| ||**THE GANDHINAGAR POLICE STATION BEFORE THE**| ||**JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT NO.**| ||**I, ETTUMANOOR**| |**ANNEXURE2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C. NO.**| ||**1808/2017 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS**| ||**MAGISTRATE COURT NO.I, ETTUMANOOR**| |**ANNEXURE3**|**THE AFFIDAVIT GIVEN BY THE DE FACTO**| ||**COMPLAINANT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS**| ||**DATED 25/02/2022**| |**ANNEXURE4**|**THE AFFIDAVIT GIVEN BY THE DE FACTO**| ||**COMPLAINANT'S WIFE (CW3) IN FAVOUR OF THE**| ||**PETITIONER DATED 25/02/2022**| **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:NIL** ## **TRUE COPY** **P.A.TO JUDGE**