High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-04-13Crl.M.Cs allowed; Final Report in Crime No. 650...

Crl.M.C Nos. 828, 1321 & 5713 of 2022, High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

Case / Petition Number:CRL.MC NO. 828 OF 2022; CRL.MC NO. 1321 OF 2022; CRL.MC NO. 5713 OF 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Babu
Judgment Date: 2023-04-13
Court Decision / Holding: The petitions are allowed. Final Report in Crime No. 650/2019 of Erattupettah Police Station and all further proceedings in CC No. 290/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Erattupettah, as against the petitioners/accused in the respective Crl.M.Cs, stand quashed.
Final Disposition: Crl.M.Cs allowed; Final Report in Crime No. 650/2019 and all further proceedings in CC No. 290/2019 against the petitioners quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Hashmi K.S
Jincy M.P.
Ameena Musthafa
Chandana A.K
Rohini Biju
Achu Baby
Dona Bijo

Respondents

State of Kerala
Station House Officer, Erattupettah Police Station
Vinaya John

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• B. Mohanlal
• Biju George
• Prakash P. George
• P.S. Preetha
• Shine N.S
• Karthik J Sekhar
• Abdul Raoof Pallipath
• K. Ravinash (Kunnath)
• Prajit Ratnakaran
• Raj Carolin V.
• Aswin V. Nair

Counsels for Respondents

• Abdul Raoof Pallipath
• K. Ravinash (Kunnath)
• Prajit Ratnakaran
• Raj Carolin V.
• B. Mohanlal
• P. S. Preetha
• Karthik J Sekhar
• Aswin V. Nair
• Praakash P. George
• Biju George

Case Synopsis & Summary

These three criminal miscellaneous petitions arise from a dispute that culminated in a Final Report in Crime No. 650/2019 of the Erattupettah Police Station and subsequent proceedings in CC No. 290/2019 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Erattupettah. The petitioners—accused nos. 6 in Cr.MC 828/2022 and accused nos. 1,3,4,5,7 in Cr.MC 1321/2022, along with accused no. 2 in Cr.MC 5713/2022 (Dona Bijo)—seek to quash the Final Report and the CC on the ground that the parties have amicably settled the subject matter. The offences are punishable under Sections 341 and 323 IPC; the common respondent 3 appeared and an affidavit was placed. The Public Prosecutor reported that the dispute has been settled voluntarily and amicably, and the victim agrees to the settlement. The Court relied on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, and Lakshmi Narayan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, to reiterate that under Section 482 Cr.P.C. a High Court can quash non-serious offences where there is a genuine settlement to serve ends of justice and prevent abuse of process. The court found the settlement to be voluntary, fair, and satisfying the conscience of the Court, with no public interest impediment. Consequently, the petitions were allowed and the Final Report and subsequent proceedings were quashed against the petitioners.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 341 IPCSection 323 IPCSection 482 Cr.P.C.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ends of justice
Abuse of process of the court
Gian Singh principle (quashing for settled matters)
Narinder Singh principle (settlement as basis for quashing)
Lakshmi Narayan principle (settlement and non-serious offences)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that the dispute arising from the incident is a private, personal matter that has already been resolved amicably between the parties. The offences under IPC Sections 341 and 323 are not of a serious or heinous nature and the integrity of the process would be best served by quashing the final report and the subsequent CC in light of the voluntary settlement. They contend that continuing the proceedings would amount to unnecessary harassment and would defeat the ends of justice, especially since the victim has given her consent freely and without coercion. The probity of the settlement is supported by the investigation records and an affidavit from the respondent. They rely on the relevant Supreme Court decisions that permit quashing when a settlement exists and public interest is not implicated.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents acknowledge the amicable settlement and the voluntary nature of the agreement. The Public Prosecutor, on instructions, informs that the dispute has been settled amicably and that the victim has consented to the settlement. They contend that, given the offences are not classified as serious and are private in nature, quashing will advance ends of justice and prevent abuse of process. They invoked the Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, and Lakshmi Narayan principles to justify quashing where a settlement exists, subject to the facts that the settlement is genuine and no public interest would be compromised.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that a High Court can quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. where the offences are not serious and there is a settlement, to serve ends of justice and prevent abuse of process.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and Others	[(2014) 6 SCC 466]	Positive	Cited to reinforce the settled-matter quashing principle for non-serious offences when settlement exists, contributing to ends of justice and preventing abuse.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Lakshmi Narayan and Others	[(2019) 5 SCC 688]	Positive	Cited for the same principle of quashing in the context of settled private disputes where public interest is not affected.

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. 828, 1321 & 5713 of 2022, High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam 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 K. BABU`** ``` THURSDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1945 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 828 OF 2022 ``` ## **`PETITIONER/6TH ACCUSED:`** ``` HASHMI K.S AGED 22 YEARS KURAVANPARAMBU HOUSE, MUHAMMA P.O., THANNEERMUKKAM SOUTH VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA ALAPPUZHA, PIN – 688 525. ``` ``` BY ADVS. B.MOHANLAL BIJU GEORGE PRAKASH P.GEORGE P.S.PREETHA SHINE N.S KARTHIK J SEKHAR ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 031. 2THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER ERATTUPETTA POLICE STATION, ERATTUPETTA P.O KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686 122. ``` ``` 3VINAYA JOHN AGED 20 YEARS, D/O JOHN THIRUMATTATHIL HOUSE, KUTTATHY P.O., KERALA ESTATE VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM, PIN – 676 523. ``` Crl.MC Nos. 828,1321 & 5713 of 2022 2 ``` BY ADVS. ``` ``` ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH)(K/1364/2003) E.MOHAMMED SHAFI(K/1057/1993) PRAJIT RATNAKARAN(K/497/1995) RAJ CAROLIN V.(K/001117/2018) ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.04.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.1321/2022, 5713/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` Crl.MC Nos. 828,1321 & 5713 of 2022 3 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 1321 OF 2022 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTCC 290/2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF ``` ``` FIRST CLASS ,ERATTUPETTA ``` ``` PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1,3,4,5 & 7: ``` ``` 1JINCY M.P., D/O. SATHYAN AGED 26 YEARS MELEPADATHIL HOUSE, PADANILAM P.O., KUNDAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673 571. 2AMEENA MUSTHAFA, D/O MUSTAFA AGED 24 YEARS THEKKANIKADU HOUSE, THOTTUMUGHAM P.O., KEEZHMADU VILLAGE, ALUVA, PIN – 683 105. 3CHANDANA A.K, D/O.KRISHNAN AGED 24 YEARS ALAMKOTTUMALA HOUSE, CHEMMARATHOOR P.O., KOTTAPPULLY VILLAGE,VADAKARA KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673 104. 4ROHINI BIJU, D/O.BIJUBAL AGED 24 YEARS PAYANANIUCKAL HOUSE, THULAPPALLY P.O., KOTTAMALA VILLAGE, RANNI PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN – 686 510. 5ACHU BABY, D/O.BABU T G AGED 25 YEARS THONIKAVAYALIL HOUSE, NEDUMKANDAM P.O., PARATHODU VILLAGE, IDUKKI, PIN – 685 553. ``` ``` BY ADVS. B.MOHANLAL P.S.PREETHA SHINE N.S KARTHIK J SEKHAR BIJU GEORGE PRAKASH P.GEORGE ``` Crl.MC Nos. 828,1321 & 5713 of 2022 4 ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682 031. ``` - `2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ERATTUPETTA POLICE STATION, ERATTUPETTA P.O, KOTTAYAM-686 122.` - `3 SMT.VINAYA JOHN, D/O.JOHN SEBASTIAN AGED 20 YEARS THIRUMATTATHIL HOUSE, KUTTATHY P.O., KERALA ESTATE VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM, PIN – 676 523.` ``` BY ADVS. ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH)(K/1364/2003) PRAJIT RATNAKARAN(K/497/1995) ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.04.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.828/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` Crl.MC Nos. 828,1321 & 5713 of 2022 5 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 5713 OF 2022 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTCC 290/2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF ``` ## **`FIRST CLASS ,ERATTUPETTA`** ## **`PETITIONER/2ND RESPONDENT:`** ``` DONA BIJO, D/O.BIJO MATHEW AGED 25 YEARS THULISSERIYIL HOUSE, KONGAADOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686 564. ``` ``` BY ADVS. B.MOHANLAL P.S.PREETHA KARTHIK J SEKHAR ASWIN V. NAIR PRAKASH P.GEORGE BIJU GEORGE ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682 031. ``` ``` 2THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER ERATTUPETTAH POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686 122. 3VINAYA JOHN, D/O.JOHN SEBASTIAN AGED 20 YEARS THIRUMATTATHIL HOUSE, KUTTATHY P.O., KERALA ESTATE VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM, PIN – 676 523. ``` Crl.MC Nos. 828,1321 & 5713 of 2022 6 ``` BY ADVS. ``` ``` ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH)(K/1364/2003) PRAJIT RATNAKARAN(K/497/1995) ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.04.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.828/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` Crl.MC Nos. 828,1321 & 5713 of 2022 7 ## **K. BABU, J** **---------------------------------------** ## **Crl.M.C Nos. 828,1321 & 5713 of 2022** **--------------------------------------** ## **Dated this the 13th day of April, 2023** ## **ORDER** These Crl.MCs are filed to quash Final Report in Crime No.650/2019 of Erattupettah Police Station and the subsequent proceedings in C.C No. 290/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Erattupettah on the ground that the parties have arrived at a settlement in respect of the subject matter. 2. The petitioners in Crl.MC No.1321/2022 are accused Nos. 1,3,4,5 and 7 respectively. The petitioner in Crl.MC No.828/2022 is accused No.6 in the case. Accused No.2 is the petitioner in Crl.MC No.5713/2022. 3. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 341and 323 the of Indian Penal Code. 4. The common respondent No.3 in all these Crl.MCs entered appearance through counsel. An affidavit sworn to by her has also been placed before this Court. 5. Heard both sides. 6. I have perused the averments in the petition and the affidavit sworn to by the common respondent No.3. Crl.MC Nos. 828,1321 & 5713 of 2022 8 7. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the matter was enquired into through the Investigating Officer, who has taken statement of the victim, 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 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 the offences not coming under the category of serious offences, where the parties have settled the matter themselves, 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 9 Crl.MC Nos. 828,1321 & 5713 of 2022 the proceedings. The 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.Cs are allowed. Final Report in Crime No.650/2019 of Erattupettah Police Station and all further proceedings in C.C No. 290/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Erattupettah, as against the petitioners/accused in the respective Crl.M.Cs stand hereby quashed. **Sd/K. BABU JUDGE** AMR Crl.MC Nos. 828,1321 & 5713 of 2022 10 ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1321/2022`** ## `PETITIONERS’ ANNEXURES` |`Annexure1`|`THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED`| |---|---| ||`13.04.2019 FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT`| ||`BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND THE FIR`| ||`SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN CRIME`| ||`NO:650/2019 OF ERATTUPETTAH POLICE STATION`| ||`BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE`| ||`COURT, ERATTUPETTA.`| |`Annexure2`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE ANTI-`| ||`RAGGING COMMITTEE OF COLLEGE OF`| ||`ENGINEERING, POONJAR DATED 16.04.2019.`| |`Annexure3`|`THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN`| ||`CRIME NO:650/2019 OF ERATTUPETTAH POLICE`| ||`STATION PENDING AS C.C.NO:290/2019 BEFORE`| ||`THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,`| ||`ERATTUPETTA.`| |`Annexure4`|`THE TRUE CITIZEN COPY OF THE FIR DATED`| ||`13.04.2019 IN CRIME NO.651/2019 OF`| ||`ERATTUPETTA POLICE STATION.`| |`Annexure5`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED`| ||`07/02/2022 IN CRL.M.C.NO. 828/2021 OF THIS`| ||`HON'BLE COURT.`| Crl.MC Nos. 828,1321 & 5713 of 2022 11 ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5713/2022`** ## `PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES` |`Annexure-A1`|`THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT, FIR`| |---|---| ||`AND FIS IN CRIME NO:650/2019 OF`| ||`ERATTUPETTAH POLICE STATION IN KOTTAYAM`| ||`DISTRICT.`| |`Annexure-A2`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED`| ||`16/04/2019 OF THE ANTI-RAGGING COMMITTEE,`| ||`COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, POONJAR.`| |`Annexure-A3`|`THE CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN`| ||`CRIME NO:650/2019 OF ERATTUPETTAH POLICE`| ||`STATION IN KOTTAYAM DISTRICT PENDING AS`| ||`C.NO:290/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL`| ||`FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,`| ||`ERATTUPETTAH.`| |`Annexure-A4`|`THE TRUE CITIZEN COPY OF THE FIR DATED`| ||`13/04/2019 IN CRIME NO:651/2019 OF`| ||`ERATTUPETTAH POLICE STATION.`| |`Annexure-A5`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED`| ||`07/02/2022 IN CRL.M.C.NO:828/2022 OF THIS`| ||`HON'BLE COURT.`| |`Annexure-A6`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED`| ||`24/02/2022 IN CRL.M.A.NO:1/2022 IN`| ||`CRL.M.C.NO:1321/2022 OF THIS HON'BLE`| ||`COURT.`| Crl.MC Nos. 828,1321 & 5713 of 2022 12 ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 828/2022`** ## `PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES` |`Annexure1`|`THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED`| |---|---| ||`13.04.2019 FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT`| ||`BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND THE FIR`| ||`SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN CRIME`| ||`NO:650/2019 OF ERATTUPETTAH POLICE STATION`| ||`BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE`| ||`COURT, ERATTUPETTA.`| |`Annexure2`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE ANTI-`| ||`RAGGING COMMITTEE OF COLLEGE OF`| ||`ENGINEERING, POONJAR DATED 16.04.2019.`| |`Annexure3`|`THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN`| ||`CRIME NO:650/2019 OF ERATTUPETTAH POLICE`| ||`STATION PENDING AS C.C.NO:290/2019 BEFORE`| ||`THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,`| ||`ERATTUPETTA.`| |`Annexure4`|`THE TRUE CITIZEN COPY OF THE FIR DATED`| ||`13.04.2019 IN CRIME NO.651/2019 OF`| ||`ERATTUPETTA POLICE STATION.`|