High Court of KeralaSingle JudgePetition allowed; proceedings quashed; petition...
Crl.MC.No. 1178 of 2017, High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No. 1178 of 2017
Neutral Citation:/
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- Raja Vijayaraghavan V
- Judgment Date
- 2017-02-13
- Court Decision / Holding
- The petition is allowed. The High Court exercises its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings. Annexure A FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom against the petitioners are quashed. Petitioners 7 to 11, who are in custody, are to be released forthwith unless their custody is required in other cases.
- Final Disposition
- Petition allowed; proceedings quashed; petitioners released from custody as applicable. Neutral citation not provided in the document.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- RAJA, S/O RAJENDRAN, LAKSHMI HARIJAN COLONY, KALLAR, PALLIVASAL, IDUKKI DISTRICT
- THIRUPATHY, S/O KARUPPAYYA, NAGARMUDI DIVISION, SEVENMALAI ESTATE, MUNNAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT
- RAJENDRAN, S/O NAGATHEVAR, LAKSHMI HARIJAN COLONY, KALLAR, PALLIVASAL, IDUKKI DISTRICT
- ARAMUGHAM, S/O KARUPPAYYA, LAKSHMI HARIJAN COLONY, KALLAR, PALLIVASAL, IDUKKI DISTRICT
- HARIDAS, S/O SANKARAN, KOOVAYIL HOUSE, MUNNAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT
- RATHEESH, S/O AYYAKANNAN, LAKSHMI HARIJAN COLONY, KALLAR, PALLIVASAL, IDUKKI DISTRICT
- RAJESH A., S/O AYYAKANNAN, LAKSHMI HARIJAN COLONY, KALLAR, PALLIVASAL, IDUKKI DISTRICT
- KANNIYAMMA, W/O RAJENDRAN, LAKSHMI HARIJAN COLONY, KALLAR, PALLIVASAL, IDUKKI DISTRICT
- SUDHA P., W/O PANDIYARAJA, LAKSHMI HARIJAN COLONY, KALLAR, PALLIVASAL, IDUKKI DISTRICT
- A. ROBINSON, S/O ANTHONY SWAMY, VEERAPANDIPIRIVU, VELLAPILLAYAR THOTTAM, TIRUPUR, TAMIL NADU
- CHELLATHURAI, S/O GANESAN, VEERAPANDIPIRIVU, VELLAPILLAYAR THOTTAM, TIRUPUR, TAMIL NADU
- M. RAJA, S/O MUTHAYYA, VEERAPANDIPIRIVU, VELLAPILLAYAR THOTTAM, TIRUPUR, TAMIL NADU
- PAPA, W/O MAYAN, LAKSHMI HARIJA COLONY, KALLAR, PALLIVASAL, IDUKKI DISTRICT
Respondents
- State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
- SHANMUGHANATHAN, S/O RAJ, Lakshmi Harijan Colony, Kallar, Pallivasal, IDUKKI District-685552
- POOLAYYA, S/O RAJA, Lakshmi Harijan Colony, Kallar, Pallivasal, IDUKKI District-685552
- JAGATHEESH, S/O RAJU, Lakshmi Harijan Colony, Kallar, Pallivasal, IDUKKI District-685552
- MANIKUMAR @ CHATTAMANI, S/O LAKSHMANAN, Nadayar South Division, Nallathanni Estate, KDH Village, IDUKKI District-685602
- SANTHOSH, S/O NARAYANA PANDI, Lakshmi Estate, South Division, KDH Village, IDUKKI District-685602
- PUSHPALATHA, W/O SHANMUGHANATHAN, LAKSHMI HARIJAN COLONY, KALLAR, PALLIVASAL, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685552
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR
Counsels for Respondents
- • Public Prosecutor SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA
- • SRI.S. RENJITH
Case Synopsis & Summary
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case concerns a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings arising from Crime No. 53/2017 at Vellathooval Police Station, involving alleged offences of unlawful assembly and violence under IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 308, 326, 427 read with 149. The petitioners (thirteen individuals named in the record) sought to end the criminal process in light of a settlement among the plantation laborers and related parties, asserting that the dispute on 22.01.2017 had been resolved and that continuing prosecution would be a futile exercise. Respondents 2–7 (and in substance the State via the Public Prosecutor) acknowledged the settlement and expressed reservations about quashing, while emphasizing that petitioners had no prior criminal antecedents. The court relies on well-established precedents in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab that empower High Courts to quash proceedings when settlement secures ends of justice and avoids abuse of process. The judge finds that the offences are not grave and that a settlement would serve peace and justice, while avoiding waste of judicial time. Consequently, the Court exercises its inherent powers, allowing the petition, quashing the FIR and proceedings, and directing release of petitioners in custody where applicable.
Provisions of Law Cited
Section 482 CrPCSections 143, 147, 148, 308, 326, 427 read with 149 IPC
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Ends of justice
- Abuse of process of law
- Amicable settlement/compromise between victim and wrongdoer
- Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303
- Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The applicants submit that the incident on 22.01.2017 gave rise to two FIRs (Crime Nos. 53/2017 and 54/2017) registered on rival versions. The parties, being plantation laborers, resolved their differences and resolved to live in peace. Affidavits sworn by respondents 2–7 support the settlement and the overarching aim of ending the dispute. It is argued that continuing prosecution would be futile and a waste of judicial time, especially since the petitioners have no criminal antecedents. The applicants invoke Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings in the interest of ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process, highlighting the amicable settlement as a suitable basis for quashing.
Contentions of Respondents
The learned Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about quashing but did not oppose the fundamental premise of settlement. It is submitted that the offences involve unlawful assembly and violence under IPC, and while there may be no grave consequences, the State must balance public order with the relief sought by settlement. The respondents acknowledge the lack of prior criminal antecedents in petitioners but urge the Court to consider whether quashing would undermine public interest or risk recurrence of such incidents. Overall, the State contends that the decision to quash should be weighed against the possibility of continuing the case for the sake of justice and public order.
Cited Precedents (2)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gian Singh v. State of Punjab | (2012) 10 SCC 303 | Positive | Used to support quashing of proceedings in appropriate cases where amicable settlement exists between victim and wrongdoer and ends of justice require termination of proceedings. |
| Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab | (2014) 6 SCC 466 | Positive | Reiterates ends of justice and avoidance of abuse of process; reinforces the Court's power to quash where settlement exists. |
Diagnostic Tool
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.MC.No. 1178 of 2017, 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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V**
**MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/24TH MAGHA, 1938**
## **Crl.MC.No. 1178 of 2017 () ---------------------------**
## **CRIME NO. 53/2017 OF VELLATHOOVAL POLICE STATION , IDUKKI**
## **PETITIONER(S): -------------**
|**1**|**RAJA,**|
|---|---|
||**S/O RAJENDRAN,**|
||**LAKSHMI HARIJAN COLONY,**|
||**KALLAR, PALLIVASAL,**|
||**IDUKKI DISTRICT.**|
|**2**|**THIRUPATHY,**|
||**S/O KARUPPAYYA,**|
||**NAGARMUDI DIVISION,**|
||**SEVENMALAI ESTATE, MUNNAR,**|
||**IDUKKI DISTRICT.**|
|**3**|**RAJENDRAN,**|
||**S/O NAGATHEVAR,**|
||**LAKSHMI HARIJAN COLONY,**|
||**KALLAR, PALLIVASAL,**|
||**IDUKKI DISTRICT.**|
|**4**|**ARAMUGHAM,**|
||**S/O KARUPPAYYA,**|
||**LAKSHMI HARIJAN COLONY,**|
||**KALLAR, PALLIVASAL,**|
||**IDUKKI DISTRICT.**|
|**5**|**HARIDAS,**|
||**S/O SANKARAN,**|
||**KOOVAYIL HOUSE, MUNNAR,**|
||**IDUKKI DISTRICT.**|
|**6**|**RATHEESH,**|
||**S/O AYYAKANNAN,**|
||**LAKSHMI HARIJAN COLONY,**|
||**KALLAR, PALLIVASAL,**|
||**IDUKKI DISTRICT.**|
|**7**|**RAJESH A.,**|
|---|---|
||**S/O AYYAKANNAN,**|
||**LAKSHMI HARIJAN COLONY,**|
||**KALLAR, PALLIVASAL,**|
||**IDUKKI DISTRICT.**|
**EL**
|**Crl.MC.No.**|**1178 of 2017 ()**|
|---|---|
|**---------------------------**||
|**8**|**KANNIYAMMA,**|
||**W/O RAJENDRAN,**|
||**LAKSHMI HARIJAN COLONY,**|
||**KALLAR, PALLIVASAL,**|
||**IDUKKI DISTRICT.**|
|**9**|**SUDHA P.,**|
||**W/O PANDIYARAJA,**|
||**LAKSHMI HARIJAN COLONY,**|
||**KALLAR, PALLIVASAL,**|
||**IDUKKI DISTRICT.**|
|**10**|**A. ROBINSON,**|
||**S/O ANTHONY SWAMY,**|
||**VEERAPANDIPIRIVU,**|
||**VELLAPILLAYAR THOTTAM,**|
||**TIRUPUR, TAMIL NADU.**|
|**11**|**CHELLATHURAI,**|
||**S/O GANESAN,**|
||**VEERAPANDIPIRIVU,**|
||**VELLAPILLAYAR THOTTAM,**|
||**TIRUPUR, TAMIL NADU.**|
|**12**|**M. RAJA,**|
||**S/O MUTHAYYA,**|
||**VEERAPANDIPIRIVU,**|
||**VELLAPILLAYAR THOTTAM,**|
||**TIRUPUR, TAMIL NADU.**|
|**13**|**PAPA,**|
||**W/O MAYAN,**|
||**LAKSHMI HARIJA COLONY,**|
||**KALLAR, PALLIVASAL,**|
||**IDUKKI DISTRICT.**|
||**BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR**|
|**RESPONDENT(S):**||
|**--------------**||
|**1**|**STATE OF KERALA,**|
||**REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,**|
||**HIGH COURT OF KERALA,**|
||**ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31.- FOR**|
||**THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,**|
||**VELLATHOVAL POLICE STATION,**|
||**IDUKKI DISTRICT.**|
|**2**|**SHANMUGHANATHAN,**|
||**S/O RAJ,**|
||**LAKSHMI HARIJAN COLONY,**|
||**KALLAR, PALLIVASAL,**|
||**IDUKKI DISTRICT-685552.**|
|**3**|**POOLAYYA,**|
||**S/O RAJA,**|
||**LAKSHMI HARIJAN COLONY,**|
||**KALLAR, PALLIVASAL,**|
||**IDUKKI DISTRICT-685552.**|
**Crl.MC.No. 1178 of 2017 () ---------------------------**
- **4 JAGATHEESH, S/O RAJU, LAKSHMI HARIJAN COLONY, KALLAR, PALLIVASAL, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685552.**
- **5 MANIKUMAR @ CHATTAMANI, S/O LAKSHMANAN, NADAYAR SOUTH DIVISION, NALLATHANNI EASTATE, KDH VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685602.**
- **6 SANTHOSH, S/O NARAYANA PANDI, LAKSHMI ESTATE, SOUTH DIVISION, KDH VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685602.**
- **7 PUSHPALATHA, W/O SHANMUGHANATHAN, LAKSHMI HARIJAN COLONY, KALLAR, PALLIVASAL, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685552.**
**R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA R2-R7 BY ADV. SRI.S.RENJITH**
**THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
**EL**
## **Crl.MC.No. 1178 of 2017 ()**
## **---------------------------**
## **APPENDIX**
## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS**
## **-----------------------**
|**A**|**TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.53/2017 OF THE**|
|---|---|
||**VELLATHOOVAL POLICE STATION DATED 22.01.2017**|
|**B**|**TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT**|
||**DATED 08.02.2017**|
|**C**|**TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT**|
||**DATED 08.02.2017**|
|**D**|**TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT**|
||**DATED 08.02.2017**|
|**E**|**TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT**|
||**DATED 08.02.2017**|
|**F**|**TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT**|
||**DATED 08.02.2017**|
|**G**|**TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT**|
||**DATED 08.02.2017**|
**RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS -----------------------**
## **NIL**
**TRUE COPY**
**P.S. TO JUDGE**
**EL**
**RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.1178 of 2017**
**----------------------------------------Dated this the 13th day of February, 2017**
## **O R D E R**
- 1.This petition is filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') with a prayer to invoke the extraordinary inherent powers and to quash the pending criminal proceedings.
- 2.On the basis of an FIR lodged by the 2[nd] respondent, Crime No.53 of 2017 of the Vellathooval Police Station was registered and investigation was taken up against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 308, 326, 427 read with 149 of the IPC.
- 3.The prosecution allegation is that on 22.1.2017 the petitioners herein formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object assaulted the party respondents and caused bodily
Crl.M.C.1178/2017
2
injuries.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that in respect of an incident which occurred on 22.1.2017, based on rival versions Crime Nos.53 of 2017 and 54 of 2017 of Vellathooval Police Station were registered. According to the counsel, the accused in both the cases are plantation laborers and during the pendency of the proceedings, they have decided to settle all their mutual differences and to live in peace and harmony. The learned counsel appearing for the parties submits that in view of the resolution of the disputes, the proceedings before the criminal court is a futile exercise. Much reliance is placed on the affidavits sworn to by the respondents 2 to 7, to buttress their submissions .
- 5.The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions expresses her reservations in the matter. However it is submitted that the petitioners are not persons with
Crl.M.C.1178/2017
3
criminal antecedents.
6.I have considered the submissions.
7.The position with regard to quashing of proceedings on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties is by now well settled. In **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab**
[(2012) 10 SCC 303] Apex Court has laid down that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. It was observed as follows :
_“61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”_
8.The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court
Crl.M.C.1178/2017 4
## in **Narinder singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC**
**466,** the pertinent observations which are as under:
## _XXXXXXXXXXX_
_29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:_
## _(i) ends of justice, or_
_(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives._
## _xxxxxxx_
_xxxxxxx_
9.The offence committed by the petitioners cannot be said to be grave and serious having ingredients of extreme mental depravity. It also does not appear that the offence in this case will have a serious impact on the society. It is felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and secure the ends of justice. Even otherwise, persisting with the prosecution
Crl.M.C.1178/2017
5
would be nothing but a waste of time as the prospects of conviction would be bleak.
10.Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court will be well justified in invoking its extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings.
In the result, this petition will stand allowed. AnnexureA FIR in Crime No.53 of 2017 of the Vellathooval Police Station and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners are quashed. It is submitted that petitioners 7 to 11 are undergoing incarceration after being arrested in the instant Crime. In view of the quashment of proceedings, they shall be released forthwith, unless their custody is wanted in any other case.
**Sd/-**
## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE**
vps