Crl.M.C Nos.2704/2020 and 2201/2020, In the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
Judgment Date: 2022-11-09
Court Decision / Holding: The Crl.M.Cs are allowed; the FIR in Crime No. 2013/2019 of Peroorkada Police Station, and all further proceedings in CC No. 64/2020 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-XI, Thiruvananthapuram, are quashed.
Final Disposition: Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Abhijith S.
Nidhin Thankachan
Abhiram S.

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
The Station House Officer, Peroorkada Police Station
Nissamudeen

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Anil K. Nair
• Binoy Vasudevan

Counsels for Respondents

• Arun Jagadish K
• C. S. Hrithwik

Case Synopsis & Summary

These two criminal miscellaneous petitions (Crl.M.C. Nos. 2704/2020 and 2201/2020) before the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam arise from Crime No. 2013/2019 of Peroorkada Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, now pending as CC No. 64/2020 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court XI. The petitioners—Abhijith S. (2704/2020); Nidhin Thankachan and Abhiram S. (2201/2020)—are accused under IPC sections 294(b), 506, and 34, and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Kerala Health Care Services Act, for allegedly threatening a doctor at Navajeevan Prakruthi Chikilsa Kendram on 02.09.2019. The petitions seek to quash further proceedings on the ground that the dispute is private and has been settled, supported by affidavits from the de facto complainant and no-objection letters, with verification by the Station House Officer. The petitioners’ counsel relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, arguing that private settlement justifies exercise of the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Given that the prosecution does not allege public interest in continuing the case and the settlement is genuine, the court quashed the FIR and all further proceedings in CC 64/2020. The order was delivered by Judge Ziyad Rahman A.A. on November 9, 2022.

Provisions of Law Cited

IPC 294(b)IPC 506IPC 34Kerala Health Care Services Persons and Health Care Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and damage to property) Act, 2012, Sections 3 and 4

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [(2012) 10 SCC 303] — no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution; inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash in cases of private settlement.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that the dispute arising from the incident at a private naturopathy clinic is private in nature and has been settled amicably. Affidavits from the de facto complainant (Annexures B and II) and a no-objection to quashing have been filed, with the Station House Officer confirming genuineness. Relying on Gian Singh v. State, they contend that the High Court should exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR No. 2013/2019 and CC No. 64/2020, as continuing proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose and undermine the settlement.

Contentions of Respondents

The State and related respondents acknowledge the settlement and affidavits, with the SHO verifying the veracity of the same. While the public interest in maintaining law and order is important, the de facto complainant’s and the SHO’s statements support quashing, consistent with the Gian Singh principle that private settlements in disputes of a private nature may justify exercise of inherent powers to quash.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another	[(2012) 10 SCC 303]	Positive	Court relied on Gian Singh to exercise inherent power under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in a matter involving a private settlement.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

Crl.M.C.Nos.2704/20, 2201/20 1 # _IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM_ ## _PRESENT_ _THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. WEDNESDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1944_ _CRL.MC NO. 2704 OF 2020_ _CRIME NO.2013/2019 OF Peroorkada Police Station,_ _Thiruvananthapuram_ ## _PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:_ _ABHIJITH.S, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.K.R. SURESH KUMAR, KATTAKALIL PUTHEN VEEDU, CHITTATINKARA, VATTIYOORKAVU P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695 013._ _BY ADVS. ANIL K.NAIR SRI.AYYAPPAN SANKAR_ ## _RESPONDENTS/STATE, INVESTIGATING OFFICER & DE FACTO_ ## _COMPLAINANT:_ _1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM – 682 031._ _2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PEROORKADA POLICE STATION, PEROORKADA P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 005._ _3 NISSAMUDEEN, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL SATHAR, DUE DALE, CHEKKAKONAM, KELTRON JUNCTION, ARUVIKKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 564._ _THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.11.2022, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.2201/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:_ Crl.M.C.Nos.2704/20, 2201/20 2 # _IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM_ ## _PRESENT_ _THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A._ _WEDNESDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1944_ ## _CRL.MC NO. 2201 OF 2020_ _CRIME NO.2013/2019 OF Peroorkada Police Station,_ ## _Thiruvananthapuram_ ## _PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2:_ - _1 NIDHIN THANKACHAN, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.THANKACHAN, PALLITHAZHAM, MACHIPLAVU, CHATTUPARA, MANNAMMKANDAM, IDUKKI-685 561._ - _2 ABHIRAM.S., S/O.C.SADASIVAN NAIR, MEKKE VEEDU, KOVILLOOR, KUDAPPANAMOODU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695 505._ ## _BY ADV.BINOY VASUDEVAN_ ## _RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:_ - _1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNKAULAM-682 031._ - _2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PEROORKADA POLICE STATION, PEROORKADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 561._ - _3 NISSAMUDHEEN,_ - _S/O.ABDUL SATHAR, DUE DALE, CHEKKAKONAM, KELTRON_ Crl.M.C.Nos.2704/20, 2201/20 3 _JUNCTION, KARAKULAM, ARUVIKKARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 564._ _BY ADV.ARUN JAGADISH K._ _THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.11.2022, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.2704/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:_ Crl.M.C.Nos.2704/20, 2201/20 4 ## **O R D E R** ## **[Crl.MC Nos.2704/2020, 2201/2020]** The petitioners in these Crl.M.Cs are accused in Crime No.2013 of 2019 of Peroorkada Police Station, which is now pending as C.C.No.64 of 2020 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-XI, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.2201 of 2020 are the accused Nos.1 and 3, and petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.2704 of 2020 is the 2[nd] accused therein. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 294(b), 506 and 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Kerala Health Care Services Persons and Health Care Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and damage to property) Act, 2012. 2. The prosecution case is that on 02.09.2019 at about 5 P.M, the petitioners herein came into the naturopathy clinic namely, Navajeevan Prakruthi Chikilsa Kendram and they threatened the doctor. Annexure-A is the FIR registered and after completing the investigation Annexure-C final report was submitted by the Police. In these Crl.M.Cs petitioners are seeking to quash all further proceedings against them pursuant to Crime No.2013 of 2019 of Peroorkada Police Station. Crl.M.C.Nos.2704/20, 2201/20 5 3. Heard Sri.Binoy Vasudevan, learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.2201 of 2020, Sri.Anil K.Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.2704 of 2020, Sri.Arun Jagadish, learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent in Crl.M.C.No.2201 of 2020 and Crl.M.C.No.2704 of 2020, Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 4. Prayer for quashing the proceedings is sought mainly on the ground that the dispute between the parties has been settled. Annexure-B and Annexure-II affidavits sworn by the 3[rd] respondent/de facto complainant are filed along with these Crl.M.Cs. to substantiate the settlement. In the said affidavits, the 3[rd] respondent/de facto complainant had specifically acknowledged the aforesaid settlement and also conveyed the no-objection to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein. The learned counsel appearing for the 3[rd] respondent/de facto complainant also confirms the same. The learned Public Prosecutor, upon instructions, submitted that the Station House Officer concerned has verified the veracity of the same and found it to be genuine. 5. The allegations would reveal that the dispute is purely private in nature. In such circumstances, by applying the principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in **Gian Singh v. State** Crl.M.C.Nos.2704/20, 2201/20 6 **of Punjab and Another [(2012) 10 SCC 303]** , proceedings can be quashed by invoking the powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This is particularly because, on account of the settlement, no fruitful purpose would be served by allowing the prosecution to continue. In the result, these Crl.M.Cs. are allowed, and the FIR registered in Crime No2013 of 2019 of Peroorkada Police Station, and all further proceedings in C.C.No.64 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-XI, Thiruvananthapuram, against the petitioners are hereby quashed. Sd/- **ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE** DG/9.11.22 Crl.M.C.Nos.2704/20, 2201/20 7 ## _APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2201/2020_ _PETITIONER ANNEXURES_ _ANNEXURE-A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO 2013/2019 OF PEROORKKADA POLICE STATION ANNEXURE-B ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT_ Crl.M.C.Nos.2704/20, 2201/20 8 ## _APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2704/2020_ _PETITIONER ANNEXURES_ _ANNEXURE I_ _CERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.R, F.I.S. AND ANNEXED RECORDS IN CRIME NO.2013/2019 OF PEROORKADA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT._ _ANNEXURE II ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT DATED 11.03.2020 SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND ATTESTED BY NOTARY._ _ANNEXURE III CERTIFIED TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.2013/2019 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT._