High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2017-05-16Prayers allowed; impugned prosecutions quashed ...

Crl.M.C Nos. 9040 & 9036 of 2016

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C Nos. 9040 & 9036 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Alexander Thomas, J.
Judgment Date: 2017-05-16
Court Decision / Holding: The petitions are allowed. The impugned Anx.A-1 FIRs in Crime Nos. 374/2016 and 375/2016 and all further proceedings arising therefrom are quashed under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. against all accused therein (i.e., the petitioners in both Crl.M.Cs). The order follows the Supreme Court doctrine that, where there is a genuine settlement between the parties, continuing prosecution would serve no useful purpose.
Final Disposition: Prayers allowed; impugned prosecutions quashed under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C.; all further proceedings before the trial court stand extinguished against all accused.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

BAREESH BALAN
RANJITH
RANJITH
ASHWIN
SAJITH
NISHANTH
CYBER RAJAN
PRABHI @ KUMBALA PRABHI
VINU
GIREESH
SALJITH
SHIBIN
RAHUL @ KITTU
SHIBU
SUKESH @ APPU
RAJENDRAN
ASHWIN
SANESH SACHU

Respondents

State of Kerala
SUKESH B.
VINOD KUMAR
MANU.K.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Rahul Sasi
• Smti. Neethu Prem

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Saigi Jacob Palattty
• Sri. Nirmal V Nair

Case Synopsis & Summary

These two criminal miscellaneous petitions (Crl.M.C. Nos. 9040/2016 and 9036/2016) arise from two connected cases registered at Hosdurg Police Station, Kasaragod (Crime Nos. 374/2016 and 375/2016). The accused (18 in one petition and 4 in the other) faced offences under IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 341, 324, 308, all read with section 149. The petitioner-accuseds and respondents are close in the same locality and are described as friends; the cases developed as a case-and-counter-case between the parties. It is stated that the dispute has been settled with intervention by respected local persons and that the defacto complainants have sworn affidavits stating they have no objection to quashing the prosecutions. The High Court invokes the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., relying on Supreme Court precedents (notably Gian Singh and Narinder Singh) that, in appropriate cases where there is a genuine settlement between parties, continuing prosecution serves no useful purpose and the High Court can quash the proceedings even for non‑compoundable offences. The Court ultimately quashes the impugned FIRs and all further proceedings against all accused.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 143 IPCSection 147 IPCSection 148 IPCSection 323 IPCSection 341 IPCSection 324 IPCSection 308 IPCSection 149 IPCSection 482 Cr.P.C.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Quashing of criminal proceedings under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. in appropriate cases where the parties have settled (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012 (10) SCC 303).
Continuance of prosecution not serving a purpose when the parties have settled (Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2014 (6) SCC 466, para. 29).

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants submit that the two connected cases are essentially a single dispute between parties who are friends in the same locality, represented as a case and counter-case. The matter has been settled with the intervention of respected local persons, and the defacto complainants have sworn affidavits stating they have no objection to quashing the impugned criminal proceedings. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decisions, including Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, they urge that Section 482 Cr.P.C. powers permit quashing where there is a genuine settlement and continued prosecution would serve no purpose; hence the quashing should be allowed in the interests of justice.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents join in the position that there is a settlement between the parties and affidavits of no objection have been placed on record; they contend that, in light of the settled nature of the dispute and the lack of objecting from the complainants, quashing the prosecutions would prevent unnecessary litigation and time-wastage, consistent with the principle that settlements can justify quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in appropriate cases.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 (10) SCC 303	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that the High Court may quash prosecutions under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. where the parties have settled, even in non-compoundable-offence cases.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr.	2014 (6) SCC 466	Positive	Cited for the more detailed principle (para 29) that supports quashing where settlements exist and continuation of prosecution would be futile.

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. 9040 & 9036 of 2016 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 ALEXANDER THOMAS** ## **TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MAY 2017/26TH VAISAKHA, 1939** **Crl.MC.No. 9040 of 2016 () --------------------------CRIME NO. 374/2016 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD** **-----** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 18: -----------------------------** ## **1. BAREESH BALAN,** - **AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. MALLIKA NILAYAM, KOLAVAYAL HOSDURG, KASARAGOD DISTRICT** ## **2. RANJITH,** **AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.RAVI, AJANUR BEACH, KASARAGOD DISTRICT** ## **3. RANJITH,** **AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.JAGANNATHAN, AJANUR BEACH, KASARAGOD DISTRICT** ## **4. ASHWIN,** **AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.ASHOKAN, AJANUR BEACH, KASARAGOD DISTRICT** ## **5. SAJITH,** **AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.SATHYAN, AJANUR BEACH, KASARAGOD DISTRICT** ## **6. NISHANTH,** **AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, AJANUR BEACH, KASARAGOD DISTRICT** ## **7. CYBER RAJAN,** **AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.DASAN, AJANUR BEACH, KASARAGOD DISTRICT** **8. PRABHI @ KUMBALA PRABHI, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, AJANUR BEACH, KASARAGOD DISTRICT** **SKG** ## **Crl.MC.No. 9040 of 2016 ()** ## **---------------------------** **9. VINU, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.KUNHAMBU, AJANUR BEACH, KASARAGOD DISTRICT 10. GIREESH, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.SISUPALAN, AJANUR BEACH, KASARAGOD DISTRICT 11. SALJITH, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.RAJAN, AJANUR BEACH, KASARAGOD DISTRICT 12. SHIBIN, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.RAJAN, AJANUR BEACH, KASARAGOD DISTRICT 13. RAHUL @ KITTU, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.KUNHIKRISHNAN, BATHERIKKAL HOUSE, AJANUR BEACH, KASARAGOD DISTRICT 14. SHIBU, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.BALAN, AJANUR BEACH, KASARAGOD DISTRICT 15. SUKESH @ APPU, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.UPENDRAN, AJANUR BEACH, KASARAGOD DISTRICT 16. RAJENDRAN, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.RAVI, AJANUR BEACH, KASARAGOD DISTRICT 17. ASHWIN, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.BALAN, AJANUR BEACH, KASARAGOD DISTRICT 18. SANESH SACHU, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.SATHYAN, AJANUR BEACH, KASARAGOD DISTRICT BY ADVS.SRI.RAHUL SASI SMT.NEETHU PREM** **SKG** ## **Crl.MC.No. 9040 of 2016 ()** ## **---------------------------** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANTS/INJURED WITNESS:** **-------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682031** ## **2. SUKESH B.,** - **S/O.NARENDRAN, AGED 30 YEARS, BATHERIKAL HOUSE, MENAPPIS, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT 671123** ## **3. VINOD KUMAR,** - **S/O.VENU, AGED 30 YEARS, BATHERIKKAL HOUSE, MEENPPEES, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT 671123** ## **4. MANU.K.,** **S/O.BALAN, AGED 25 YEARS, OMKARAM, KANHANGAD BEACH, KASARAGOD DIST. 671125** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY R2-R4 BY ADV. SRI.NIRMAL V NAIR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-05-2017, ALONG WITH CRMC. 9036/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **SKG** ## **Crl.MC.No. 9040 of 2016 () ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS -----------------------** |**ANNEXURE A1**| **A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 374/2016 OF**| |---|---| ||**HOSDURG POLICE STATION**| |**ANNEXURE A2**| **AFFIDAVIT DATED 06.12.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND**| ||**RESPONDENT**| |**ANNEXURE A3**| **AFFIDAVIT DATED 06.12.2016 SUBMITTED BY 3RD**| ||**RESPONDENT**| |**ANNEXURE A4**| **AFFIDAVIT DATED 06.12.2016 SUBMITTED BY 4TH**| ||**RESPONDENT**| |**ANNEXURE A5**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.374**| ||**OF 2016 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION**| |**ANNEXURE A6**|**AFFIDAVIT DATED 03.05.2017 SUBMITTED BY INJURED**| ||**WITNESS NIKHIL**| |**RESPONDENT(S)'**|**EXHIBITS**| |**-----------------------** **NIL**|| ||**/TRUE COPY/**| ||**P.S. TO JUDGE**| ## **SKG** ## ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ----------------------------- Crl.M.C.Nos.9040 & 9036 Of 2016 --------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of May, 2017. ## O R D E R The prayers in these Crl.M.Cs relate to quashment of the respective criminal proceedings impugned in these cases, which essentially appear to be a case and counter case instituted at the behest of the rival parties. The 1st petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.9040/2016 is the 2nd respondent (defacto complainant) in Crl.M.C.No.9036/2016. The contesting respondents 2 & 3 (defacto complainants) in Crl.M.C.No.9040/2016 are the petitioners 1 & 4 (accused) in Crl.M.C.No.9036/2016. 2. The brief facts in Crl.M.C.No.9040/2016 are as follows: The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 18 in Anx.A-5 Final Report (arising out of Anx.A-1 FIR) in Crime No.374/2016 of Hosdurg Police Station registered for offences alleged under Secs.143, 147, 148, 323, 341, 324, 308, r/w Sec.149 of the IPC, on the basis of a complaint filed by the 2nd respondent on the allegation that on 14.4.2016 the accused formed themselves in to an unlawful assembly and attacked 2nd and 3rd respondent. ::2:: Crl.M.C.Nos.9040 & 9036 Of 2016 3. The brief facts in Crl.M.C.No.9036/2016 are as follows: The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 4 in Anx.A-1 FIR in Crime No.375/2016 of Hosdurg Police Station registered for offences alleged under Secs.143, 147, 148, 323, 341, 324, 308, 294(b) r/w Sec.149 of the IPC, on the basis of a complaint filed by the 2nd respondent on the allegation that on 14.4.2016 the accused formed themselves in to an unlawful assembly and attacked 2nd respondent. 4. It is submitted that both cases were registered as case and counter case. The petitioners and respondents are friends of the same locality. It is also submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties due to the interference of the respected persons in the locality and that the respective defacto complainants have sworn to affidavits wherein they have stated that they have no objection in the quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings pending against the respective petitioners. It is in the light of these aspects that the petitioners have filed these Crl.M.Cs seeking the prayer for quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings. 5. In a catena of decisions, the Apex Court has held that, in appropriate cases involving even non-compoundable offences, the High Court can quash prosecution by exercise of the powers under Sec.482 ::3:: Crl.M.C.Nos.9040 & 9036 Of 2016 of the Cr.P.C., if the parties have really settled the whole dispute or if the continuance of the prosecution will not serve any purpose. Here, this Court finds a real case of settlement between the parties and it is also found that continuance of the prosecution in such a situation will not serve any purpose other than wasting the precious time of the court, when the case ultimately comes before the court. On a perusal of the petition and on a close scrutiny of the investigation materials on record and the affidavit of settlement and taking into account the attendant facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the legal principles laid down by the Apex Court in the cases as in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 160 = (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr. reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, more particularly paragraph 29 thereof, could be applied in this case to consider the prayer for quashment. 6. Accordingly, it is ordered that the impugned Anx.A-1 FIR (which has led to Anx.A-5 Final Report) in Crime No.374/2016 of Hosdurg Police Station, which has now resulted in C.P.No.32/2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg, which is impugned in Crl.M.C.No.9040/2016 and all further proceedings arising ::4:: Crl.M.C.Nos.9040 & 9036 Of 2016 there from will stand quashed as against all the accused therein under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. So also, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the impugned Anx.A-1 FIR in Crime No.375/2016 of Hosdurg Police Station, which is impugned in Crl.M.C.No.9036/2016 and all further proceedings arising therefrom will stand quashed as against all the accused therein under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. With these observations and directions, these Crl.M.Cs stand finally disposed of. ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge. bkn/-