Crl.M.C Nos. 3502 and 4314 of 2016, In the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
Judgment Date: 2016-07-15
Court Decision / Holding: The petitions are allowed; all further proceedings against the petitioners, accused Nos. 1 to 7, in CP No.25 of 2016, JMFC Payyoli, are quashed.
Final Disposition: Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

REJIL RAJ @ VETHALAM
ARUN KUMAR
SHYAM PRASAD
DHANIL
BABEESH

Respondents

State of Kerala
Rejil Raj
SURYAJITH
DILLEP

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri Mathews K. Uthuppachan
• Sri Terry V. James
• Sri Sharan Shahier

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor Smt. Sareena George
• Adv. Abdurahiman Vayalil Peedikayil

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court judgment deals with two Criminal Miscellaneous Cases (Crl.M.C. Nos. 3502 and 4314 of 2016) arising from Crime No. 773/2015 of Payyoli Police Station, Kozhikode. Accused Nos. 1 to 7 in the underlying case sought to quash the criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC on the basis of a negotiated settlement. The alleged offences under IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324 and 308 read with 149 were committed on 6 December 2015 when the accused allegedly formed an unlawful assembly and attacked the de facto complainant and others. Annexures included the FIR and affidavits from the de facto complainant and the injured indicating no objection to termination of proceedings. The Public Prosecutor noted the petitioners had no criminal antecedents. The counsel for the petitioners argued that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and there is no acrimony, that quashing would serve the interests of peace, and relied on the Supreme Court’s Gian Singh decision. The judge concluded the offence is personal, not affecting public order, and emphasized that continued prosecution would be futile and prejudicial. On this basis, he allowed the petitions, quashing all further proceedings against the accused Nos. 1–7. The order reflects a balancing of private settlement against public interest in favor of dismissal.

Provisions of Law Cited

IPC Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324 and 308 read with Section 149CrPC Section 482

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submitted that the parties have amicably settled their disputes, there is no acrimony, and continuing the prosecution would cause oppression. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, they contended that Section 482 CrPC should be invoked to quash the proceedings in the interests of peace and in light of no public interest in continuing the case.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor stated that petitioners have no criminal antecedents. He did not oppose the quashing in principle but framed the matter as a private dispute, arguing that the court should consider public interest in quashing.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 (4) KLT 108	Positive	The court relied on the Gian Singh decision to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings where the parties have settled and there is no public interest in continuing the criminal proceedings.

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** **FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2016/24TH ASHADHA, 1938** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3502 of 2016 ()** ## **--------------------------CRIME NO. 773/2015 OF PAYYOLI POLICE STATION,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT** **---------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:** **---------------------------------------** ## **1. REJIL RAJ @ VETHALAM,** - **S/O.RAGHAVAN NAIR, AGED 24 YEARS, KIZHAKKE KULUPPA HOUSE, P.O.IRINGATH, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** ## **2. ARUN KUMAR,** **S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, AGED 21 YEARS, AMITHA NIVAS HOUSE, P.O.IRINGATH, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** ## **3. SHYAM PRASAD,** - **S/O.RAGHAVAN, AGED 22 YEARS, MADAYI HOUSE, P.O.IRINGATH, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** ## **4. DHANIL,** - **S/O.DAMODARAN, AGED 22 YEARS, PUTHALATH HOUSE, P.O.IRINGATH, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** ## **5. BABEESH,** - **S/O.BABU, AGED 29 YEARS, NADEMMAL HOUSE, P.O.IRINGATH, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN SRI.TERRY V.JAMES SRI.SHARAN SHAHIER** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT:** **---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA,** - **REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAYYOLI POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-682 031.** **2. REJIL RAJ, S/O.RAJAN, AGED 20 YEARS, KADUVANCHRI KUNNU HOUSE, P.O.IRINGATH, THURAYOOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 523.** **2/-** **-2-** ## **CRL.MC.NO.3502/2016** ## **3. SURYAJITH,** **S/O.KELAPPAN, AGED 21 YEARS, KUYIMBIL HOUSE, P.O.IRINGATH, THURAYOOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT- 673 523.** **4. DILLEP, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN,** **AGED 32 YEARS, CHERIYA PARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.IRINGATH, THURAYOOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT- 673 523.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SAREENA GEORGE R2 BY ADV. SRI.ABDURAHIMAN VAYALIL PEEDIKAYIL** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-07-2016,ALONG WITH CRL.MC.NO.4314 OF 2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** **Crl.MC.No. 3502 of 2016 () --------------------------------------APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES: -------------------------------------------ANNEX-A1: COPY OF FIR CRIME NO.773 OF 2015 OF PAYYOLI POLICE. ANNEX-A2: AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT AND INJURED.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL ----------------------------------------------/TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE sts** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V., J.** ------------------------------------------ **Crl.M.C.Nos.3502 and 4314 of 2016** -----------------------------------------Dated this the 15[th] day of July, 2016 ## **O R D E R ~~~~~~~~** 1.The petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.3502 of 2016 are the accused Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and the petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.4314 of 2016 are the accused Nos. 2 and 3 in C.P.No.25 of 2016 of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Payyoli. The aforesaid case has arisen from Crime No.773 of 2015 of Payyoli Police Station registered at the instance of the 2[nd] respondent herein alleging offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324 and 308 read with Section 149 of the IPC. - 2.The prosecution allegation is that, on 6.12.2015 at about 6.30 p.m., the petitioners had formed themselves into an ## **Crl.M.C.Nos.3502 and 4314 of 2016** **-2-** unlawful assembly and attacked the _de facto_ complainant and other victims. - 3.The respondents 3 and 4 are the victims. - 4.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the respondents 2 to 4 and also the learned Public Prosecutor. - 5.It is submitted that the parties have reached an out of court settlement and there is no acrimony between them at present. All the disputes have been amicably resolved and they desire to live in peace and harmony. The respondents 2 to 4 have sworn to separate affidavits wherein they assert that they have no objection in terminating the proceedings. - 6.Relying on the judgment rendered by the Three – Judge Bench of the Apex Court in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab ( 2012 (4) KLT 108)** it is prayed that powers ## **Crl.M.C.Nos.3502 and 4314 of 2016** **-3-** under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be invoked to quash the criminal proceedings. - 7.The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that the petitioners are not persons with criminal antecedents. - 8.I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made across the bar and I have also gone through the materials on record. - 9.It appears to me that the offence is entirely personal in nature and do not affect public peace or tranquility. It is also felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace. In a case such as the instant one, even if the prosecution is allowed to continue, it would not serve any purpose as the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. It can only result in putting the _de facto_ complainant and the accused to ## **Crl.M.C.Nos.3502 and 4314 of 2016** **-4-** unwanted oppression and prejudice. Settlement will augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony. In the result, this petition is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners, who are the accused Nos. 1 to 7 in C.P.No.25 of 2016 of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Payyoli, shall stand quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE.** ps/16/7/16 ## **Crl.M.C.Nos.3502 and 4314 of 2016** **-5-**