High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeDisposed of; FIRs quashed and proceedings arisi...

Crl.M.C. Nos.1568 & 1603 of 2019

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C. Nos.1568/2019; 1603/2019

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Alexander Thomas
Judgment Date
2019-03-12
Court Decision / Holding
The court allows the quashing of both FIRs (Crime No.1126/2018 and 1125/2018) and directs that all further proceedings pursuant thereto against all accused stand quashed, disposing of Crl.M.C. Nos.1568/2019 and 1603/2019 in the interest of justice.
Final Disposition
Disposed of; FIRs quashed and proceedings arising therefrom; cases finally disposed of.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Vijay Paul
  • Leela
  • Chellan @ Davidson
  • Anil @ Anilkumar
  • Babu @ Yesudhanam
  • Saramma
  • Rajan
  • Sheela

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
  • Circle Inspector of Police Poovar Police Station
  • Nishamol W/o. Saji, Dharbavila Veedu, Anumanoor, Thiruvananthapuram
  • Binitha D/o Leela, Karthika Bhavan, Arumanor, Poovar Village, Neyyattinkara
  • Maitheen Beevi W/o Dinesh, Bethel Bhavan, Plavuninnavila, Arumanoor, Poovar Village, Neyyattinkara

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri R. Gopan

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri Shajin S. Hameed
  • • Sri Saigi Jacob Palatty
  • • Sri R. Gopan

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court judgment concerns two connected Criminal Miscellaneous Cases (Crl.M.C. Nos. 1568/2019 and 1603/2019) arising from two Poovar Police Station crimes: Crime No.1126/2018 and Crime No.1125/2018. Eight accused in the first case (Vijay Paul, Leela, Chellan/Davidson, Anil, Babu, Saramma, Rajan, Sheela) and five accused in the related case faced prosecutions under IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 294(b), 323, 324, 427. The petitioners seek quashment under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the parties have settled their disputes with the defacto complainants/injured parties, with affidavits evidencing settlement filed in Annexures-B to-E (Crl.M.C.1568) and Annexures-B to-E (Crl.M.C.1603). The State and the defacto complainants acknowledge the settlements in affidavits but the court considers the broader principle laid down by the Supreme Court that quashing can be appropriate even for non‑compoundable offences if there is genuine settlement and continued prosecution would serve no useful purpose. Citing Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, the court finds a real settlement and that continuing the prosecutions would waste the court’s time. Consequently, the impugned FIRs (Crime No.1126/2018 and 1125/2018) and all further proceedings against all accused are quashed, disposing of both petitions in the interests of justice.

Provisions of Law Cited

IPC: 143, 147, 148, 149, 294(b), 323, 324, 427CrPC: Section 482

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Quashing of prosecutions under Cr.P.C. 482 upon genuine settlement (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab)
  • Settlement and quashing principles in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (para 29)
  • Continuance of prosecution would waste court time and serve no purpose

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The eight accused contend that the disputes between them and the defacto complainants have been resolved amicably with affidavits evidencing settlement; they urge the High Court to exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the prosecutions in the interest of justice, citing a genuine settlement and the overall aim of conserving court time, resources, and preventing injustice arising from continued litigation.

Contentions of Respondents

The State and defacto complainants acknowledge the settlements evidenced by affidavits and submit that the High Court may examine the material and exercise its discretion to quash if the settlement is genuine and continuing prosecution would not serve public or judicial interests.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 160 = (2012) 10 SCC 303PositiveThe court relies on Gian Singh to justify quashing where settlement exists and continuation serves no useful purpose.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr(2014) 6 SCC 466PositiveCited for para 29 to support settlement-based quashing in appropriate cases.

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.1568 & 1603 of 2019 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 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1940** # **Crl.MC.No. 1568 of 2019** **CRIME NO. 1126/2018 OF POOVAR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM(RURAL)** **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 8:** - **1 VIJAY PAUL, S/O.GEORGE, VIPANCHIKAYIL,PANCHIKKALA, ARUMANOOR DESOM,POOVAR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA.** - **2 LEELA, D/O PALAMMA, NEDIYAKALA KOTTARAKKUNNU VEEDU, POOVAR VILLAGE, ARUMANOOR DESOM, NEYYATTINKARA.** - **3 CHELLAN @ DAVIDSON, S/O.AESAKH,D.S.BHAVAN, DHARBHAVILA PANCHIKKALA ARUMANOOR,ARUMANOOR, POOVAR,NEYYATTINKARA TALUK** - **4 ANIL @ ANILKUMAR, S/O.YESAV,NEDIYAKALA,ARUMANOOR, POOVAR,NEYYATTINKARA.** - **5 BABU @ YESUDANAM,** - **S/O.YESAV,VIJESH BHAVAN,NEYYATTINKARA TALUK.** - **6 SARAMMA, W/O.CHELLAN @ DAVIDSON, DS BHAVAN,DHARBHAVILA,PANACHIKKALA, ARUMANOOR,POOVAR VILLAGE,NEYYATTINKARA TALUK.** - **7 RAJAN, S/O.NESAN, NEDIYAKALA KOTTARAKUNU VEEDU, POOVAR, ARUMANOOR, NEYYATTINKARA.** - **8 SHEELA, W/O.ANIL@ANILKUMAR, NEDIYAKALA, ARUMANOOR, POOVAR, NEYYATTINKARA.** Crl.M.C.Nos.1568 & 1603 of 2019 2 ## **BY ADV. SRI.R.GOPAN** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031.** - **2 CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE POOVAR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL-695001.** - **3 NISHAMOL W/O.SAJI, DHARBAVILA VEEDU,ANUMANOOR, THIRUPURAM,NEYYATTINKARA-695121.** - **4 BINITHA D/O.LEELA,KARTHIKA BHAVAN,KIZHAMGUNINNA VILA,ARUMANOOR,POOVAR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA-695121.** - **5 MAITHEEN BEEVI W/O.DINESH,BETHEL BHAVAN,PLAVUNINNAVILA, ARUMANOOR,POOVAR VILLAGE,NEYYATTINKARA-695121.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI.AMJAD ALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R-1 & R-2 SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED FOR R3 TO R5** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.03.2019, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.1603/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Crl.M.C.Nos.1568 & 1603 of 2019 3 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **TUESDAY ,THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1940** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1603 of 2019** **CRIME NO. 1125/2018 OF POOVAR POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 5** |**1**|**NIDHIN,**| |---|---| ||**AGED 21 YEARS**| ||**S/O.DCINESH KUMAR, BETHEL BHAVAN, POOVAR,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.**| |**2**|**SHAFEEK,**| ||**AGED 21 YEARS**| ||**S/O.SEYYADALI, INCHIPUTHIVILA VEEDU, POOVAR,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.**| |**3**|**NISHAMOL,**| ||**AGED 29 YEARS**| ||**W/O.SASI, DHARBHAVIL VEEDU, ARUMANOOR, POOVAR,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM**| |**4**|**BIBITHA,**| ||**AGED 41 YEARS**| ||**W/O.JOHN, KARTHIKA BHAVAN, ARUMANOOR, POOVAR,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.**| |**5**|**SHEEBA @ MYTHEEN BEEVI,**| ||**W/O.DINESH KUMAR, BETHEL BHAVAN, POOVAR,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM**| Crl.M.C.Nos.1568 & 1603 of 2019 4 ## **BY ADV. SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031.** - **2 LEELA, AGED 40 YEARS D/O.PALAMMA, KOTTARAKUNNU VEEDU, NEDIYAKALA, ARAMANOOR, POOVAR VILLAGE-695001** - **3 SARAMMA, AGED 56 YEARS D/O.KAMALA BAI, D.S.BHAVAN, DHARBHAVILA, PANCHIKKALA, ARUMANOOR, POOVAR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001** - **4 VIJAY PAUL, AGED 58 YEARS** - **S/O.GEORGE, VIPANCHIKAYIL, PANCHIKKALA, ARUMANOOR, POOVAR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001** - **5 DAVIDSON,** - **AGED 63 YEARS** - **D.S.BHAVAN, DARBHAVILA, PANCHIKKALA, ARUMANOOR, POOVAR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** **SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R1, SRI.R.GOPAN FOR R2 TO R5** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.03.2019, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.1568/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Crl.M.C.Nos.1568 & 1603 of 2019 5 ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.** **=========================== Crl.M.C.Nos.1568 & 1603 of 2019 ===========================** Dated this the 12[th] day of March, 2019 ## **ORDER** The petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.1568/2019 are the eight accused in Crime No.1126/2018 of Poovar Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Secs.143, 147, 148, 149, 294(b), 323, 324, 427 of IPC. The defacto complainant in respect of the said criminal proceedings is the 3[rd] respondent therein. It appears that a counter case has also been registered in respect of the related incident which had happened on the same day and the 2[nd] respondent in Crl.M.C.No.1603/2019 and four others have been arrayed as the five accused in Crime No.1125/2018 of Poovar Police Station for offences punishable under Secs. 143, 147, 148, 149, 294(b), 323, 326 & 34 of IPC. 2. The petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.1603/2019 are the said five accused in Crime No.1125/2018 and the 3[rd] petitioner (Nishamol) is the 2[nd] respondent/defacto complainant in Crl.M.C.No. 1568/2019. Now it is stated that the parties have decided to settle all their disputes and thus they plead that their respective impugned criminal proceedings as against these Crl.M.C.Nos.1568 & 1603 of 2019 6 parties may be quashed on the ground of settlement arrived between them. The 3[rd] respondent/defacto complainant in Crl.M.C.No.1568/2019 and the other injured in regard to that crime had filed affidavits as per Annexures-B, C & D in that Crl.M.C evidencing the fact of settlement between the parties. The 3[rd] respondent/defacto complainant in Crl.M.C.No.1603/2019 is the 6[th] petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.1568/2019. The said 3[rd] respondent/defacto complainant and R-4 & R-5 in Crl.M.C.No.1568/2019 are the petitioners 3, 4 & 5 in respect of the criminal proceedings in Crl.M.C.No.1603/2019. The said defacto complainants filed Annexures-B, C, D & E affidavits as produced in Crl.M.C.No.1603/2019, evidencing the fact of settlement between the parties. 3. 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 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 Crl.M.C.Nos.1568 & 1603 of 2019 7 the 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. 4. Accordingly, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the plea of the petitioners in both the Crl.M.Cs for quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement could be considered. Hence, it is ordered that the impugned Annexure-A FIR in Crime No.1126/2018 of Poovar Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram (Rural) in Crl.M.C.No.1568/2019 and all further proceedings taken in pursuance thereof as against all the accused will stand quashed. Further it is ordered in the interest of justice that the impugned Annexure-A FIR in Crime No.1125/2018 of Poovar Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram (Rural) in Crl.M.C.No.1603/2019 and all further proceedings taken in pursuance thereof as against all the accused will stand quashed. Crl.M.C.Nos.1568 & 1603 of 2019 8 With these observations and directions, the above Criminal Miscellaneous Cases will stand finally disposed of. Sd/- **ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE** vgd/13.03.19 Crl.M.C.Nos.1568 & 1603 of 2019 9 ## **APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 1568/2019** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.1126/2018 DATED 17.9.2018 PREPARED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,POOVAR POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE B AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT SIGNED BEFORE THE NOTARY PUBLIC DATED 16.1.2019. ANNEXURE C AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT SIGNED BEFORE THE NOTARY PUBLIC DATED 16.1.2019. ANNEXURE D AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT SIGNED BEFORE THE NOTARY PUBLIC DATED 16.1.2019.** Crl.M.C.Nos.1568 & 1603 of 2019 10 ## **APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 1603/2019** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE-A ACTUAL COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 1125/2018 PREPARED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POOVAR POLICE STATION DATED 17/9/2018 ANNEXURE-B AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT SIGNED BEFORE THE NOTARY PUBLIC DATED 16/1/2019 ANNEXURE-C AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT SIGNED BEFORE THE NOTARY PUBLIC DATED 16/2/2019 ANNEXURE-D AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT SIGNED BEFORE THE NOTARY PUBLIC DATED 16/2/2019 ANNEXURE-E AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT SIGNED BEFORE THE NOTARY PUBLIC DATED 16/2/2019**