CRL.M.C. Nos. 5293 & 7204 of 2018, High Court of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Babu
Judgment Date: 2023-03-20
Court Decision / Holding: The petitions are allowed; all further proceedings in CC No.625/2018 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vaikom, stand quashed.
Final Disposition: The petitions were allowed; all further proceedings in CC No.625/2018 stood quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

V. V. Vilasini
K. V. Kasmin

Respondents

State of Kerala rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam-682031 (Crime No.1760/2015 of Vaikom Police Station, Kottayam District)
Jalajamani

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri S. Rajeev
• Sri K.K. DheerendraKrisnan
• Sri D. Feroze
• Sri V. Vinay
• K.S. Hariharaputhran
• Sri George Mathew
• Sri Dipu James
• Smt. Banu Thilak

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor Pushpaletha
• Adv Alias M. Cherian

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a common order by the Kerala High Court dealing with Criminal Miscellaneous Cases Nos. 5293/2018 and 7204/2018 filed by two petitioners challenging proceedings in CC No. 625/2018 pending before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vaikom. The petitioners, Vilasini and Kasmin, faced multiple IPC charges (sections 120-B, 406, 420, 465, 468 and 34). Respondent No.2, the de facto complainant, and the Investigating Officer report that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled, with the complainant deciding not to pursue further action. The court notes the settlement is voluntary, fair, and acceptable to the complainant, and that the offences are not of a grave or public-interest nature. Citing Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab, and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Lakshmi Narayan and Others, the Apex Court precedents are invoked to permit quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for non-compoundable offences when bona fide settlements exist to ensure ends of justice and prevent abuse of process, even if Section 320 Cr.P.C. would otherwise bar compounding. The court concludes that no public interest is at stake and that quashing the proceedings will serve ends of justice. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed and all further proceedings in CC No.625/2018 are quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 120-B IPCSection 406 IPCSection 420 IPCSection 465 IPCSection 468 IPCSection 34 IPCSection 320 Cr.P.C.Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ends of justice
Prevention of abuse of the process of the court

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled. Since the offences are non-heinous and the settlement is voluntary and fair, continuing proceedings would be an unnecessary exercise of power that would not serve the ends of justice.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submitted that the settlement is genuine and voluntary, and that the case is not of a nature requiring public interest to be protected; however, the non-compoundable nature of the offences and the need to examine ends of justice were highlighted, with reliance on settled law permitting quashing in appropriate circumstances.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)	Positive	Apex Court held that high courts can quash non-compoundable offences when there is a bona fide settlement to serve ends of justice, notwithstanding Section 320 Cr.P.C.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and Others	[(2014) 6 SCC 466]	Positive	Supports quashing in settlement scenarios to ensure ends of justice despite prohibition under Section 320 Cr.P.C.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Lakshmi Narayan and Others	[(2019) 5 SCC 688]	Positive	Affirms that quashing is permissible for non-compoundable offences where parties settle, to prevent abuse and advance ends of justice.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 20[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 29TH PHALGUNA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 5293 OF 2018 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTCC 625/2018 OF JUDICIAL ``` ## **`MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,VAIKOM`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` 1V.V.VILASINI AGED 59 YEARS,W/O.KASMIN,SIVASAKTHI APARTMENTS,SIVASAKTHI LANE,OPP.MLA HOUSE,TRIPUNITHURA. ``` ``` 2K.V.KASMIN AGED 63 YEARS,S/O.VASUDEVAN,SIVASAKTHI APARTMENTS,SIVASAKTHI LANE,OPP.MLA HOUSE,TRIPUNITHURA. BY ADVS. SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.D.FEROZE SRI.V.VINAY ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** - `1 STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM-682031,(CRIME NO.1760/2015 OF VAIKOM POLICE STATION,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT).` ``` 2JALAJAMANI AGED 52 YEARS,W/O.MURALEEDHARAN,AMBADI HOUSE,PALLIPPURATHUSSERI,VAIKOM,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. ``` ``` R2 BY ADV ALIAS M.CHERIAN ``` ``` R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT PUSHPALETHA ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.03.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.7204/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` Crl.M.C.Nos.5293 & 7204 of 2018 ..2.. # **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU MONDAY, THE 20[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 29TH PHALGUNA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 7204 OF 2018 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTCC 625/2018 OF JUDICIAL ``` ``` MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,VAIKOM ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` S.K. SIKKAYYAN, AGED 74 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNASWAMY, METTAHILL VEEDU, KAILASANADU P.O, PARATHODU VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 551. BY ADVS. K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SRI.DIPU JAMES SMT.BHANU THILAK ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REP. BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VAIKKOM POLICE STATION -686141, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031. 2JALAJAMANI, AGED 52 YEARS, W/O.MURALEEDHARAN, AMBADI HOUSE, PALLIPURATHUSSERI, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 141. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI G SUDHEER R2 BY ADV SRI.ALIAS M.CHERIAN ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.03.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5293/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` Crl.M.C.Nos.5293 & 7204 of 2018 **==> picture [20 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ## **K.BABU, J** . -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.Nos.5293 & 7204 of 2018 --------------------------------------Dated this the 20[th ] day of March, 2023 ## **COMMON ORDER** ## Crl.M.C.No.72024 of 2018 This Crl.M.C. has been filed to quash Annexure -A1 Final Report in Crime No. 1760 of 2015 of Vaikom Police Station, Kottayam and all further proceedings in C.C.No.625 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial First Magistrate Court-I, Vaikom. It is submitted that the petitioner is no more. The Crl.M.C. is therefore dismissed as infructuous. ## Crl.M.C.No.5293 of 2018 The prayer in this Crl.M.C. is to quash all further proceedings in C.C.No.625 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Vaikom. 2. The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2. Crl.M.C.Nos.5293 & 7204 of 2018 **==> picture [20 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** 3. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 465, 468 and 34 of IPC. 4. Respondent No.2, the defacto complainant entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn to by her has also been placed before this Court. 5. Heard Shri. Vinay V., the learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri. Alias M. Cherian, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and the learned Public Prosecutor. 6. I have perused the averments in the petition and the affidavit sworn to by respondent No.2. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the matter was enquired into through the Investigating Officer, who has taken statement of the defacto complainant, and it is reported that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled. The material placed before the Court shows that the entire dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the defacto complainant has decided not to proceed Crl.M.C.Nos.5293 & 7204 of 2018 **==> picture [20 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** further. The settlement between the parties is found to be voluntary and fair. The settlement or the compromise satisfies the conscience of the Court. It is seen that the victim agreed to settle the matter with her free will. 8. In **Gian Singh** v. **State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)]** , **Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and Others [(2014) 6 SCC 466]** and **State of Madhya Pradesh v. Lakshmi Narayan and Others [(2019) 5 SCC 688]** the Apex Court held that the High Court, invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C., can quash criminal proceedings in relation to non-compoundable offences, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of Cr.P.C., if it is warranted in the given facts and circumstances of the case, to ensure ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. 9. In the instant case, the dispute is purely personal in nature. There is nothing to show that public interest will be compromised by quashing the proceedings. The Crl.M.C.Nos.5293 & 7204 of 2018 **==> picture [20 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** offences in question do not fall within the category of serious offences or heinous offences. 10. The offences in the present case do not fall within the category of offences prohibited for granting permission to compromise in terms of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in **Gian Singh** (supra), **Narinder Singh** (supra) and **Lakshmi Narayan** (supra). 11. This Court is of the view that no purpose will be served in proceeding with the matter further. Resultantly, the Crl.M.C is allowed. All further proceedings in C.C.No.625 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Vaikom, stand hereby quashed. Sd/- **K.BABU, JUDGE** kkj Crl.M.C.Nos.5293 & 7204 of 2018 ..7.. ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7204/2018`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1:TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT DATED 30.04.2018 IN CR.NO.1760 OF 2015 OF VAIKOM POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. ``` Crl.M.C.Nos.5293 & 7204 of 2018 ..8.. ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5293/2018`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE-ITRUE COPY OF TEH RENT CONTROL PETITION AS RCP NO.15/2014 ANNEXURE IITRUE COPY OF THE SUIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AS OS NO.46/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT-II, KOTTAYAM ANNEXURE IIITRUE COPY OF THE SUIT FILED BY THE THIRD ACCUSED AS OS NO.136/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM. ANNEXURE IVCERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.1760/2015 OF VAIKOM POLICE STATION. ```