Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed

Crl.MC.No. 1725 of 2012

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No.1725 of 2012
Neutral Citation:/null

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • A.M. Shaffique
  • Thomas P. Joseph
Judgment Date
2012-06-13
Court Decision / Holding
All proceedings in Crime No.12 of 2009 of Chengamanad Police Station pending as CC No.231 of 2009 before JFCM Court I, Aluva, are quashed. The Cr.M.C. is disposed of accordingly.
Final Disposition
Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Sunil
  • Ajaya Kumar
  • Eldhose
  • Shaneeb
  • Syam Sankar
  • Praveen Kumar
  • Nazar

Respondents

  • Vipin
  • Manoj
  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri. Sunil Kumar Kuriaokose

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri. J. Abhilash
  • • Sri. Jose Adiyodi A.J., Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court (Ernakulam) criminal miscellaneous case under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash Crime No.12/2009 of Chengamanad Police Station, pending as CC No.231/2009 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Aluva. The petition is filed by seven accused persons (Sunil; Ajaya Kumar; Eldhose; Shaneeb; Syam Sankar; Praveen Kumar; Nazar) facing allegations under Sections 143, 147, 447, 323 read with Section 149 IPC. The de facto complainant and the injured persons (Respondents 1 and 2) have filed affidavits stating that the matter arose from an election-related poster dispute and that the dispute has been settled; they do not intend to prosecute. The State is represented by the Public Prosecutor. The petition argues that, although some offences are non-compoundable, the High Court’s inherent power under Section 482 CrPC allows quashing where a settlement exists and continuing prosecution would cause unnecessary hardship. The court relies on Supreme Court precedents—Joshi v. State of Haryana; Madan Mohan Abbot v. State; Nikhil Merchant v. CBI; Manoj Sharma v. State—which approve quashing in such circumstances. Based on the affidavits and the settled posture of the parties, the court holds that further investigation or prosecution would be unwarranted, and thus quashes all proceedings against the petitioners. The order is by Justice A.M. Shaffique (Single Judge).

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal ProcedureSections 143, 147, 447, 323 read with Section 149 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings in the interest of justice
  • Settlement between parties and lack of prosecution by the de facto complainant can justify quashing even for non-compoundable offences
  • Cited precedents support the exercise of quashing where there is settlement (Joshi v. Haryana; Madan Mohan Abbot v. State; Nikhil Merchant v. CBI; Manoj Sharma v. State)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Applicants argued for quashing under Section 482 CrPC in light of affidavits from the de facto complainant (Annexures A2 and A3) showing settlement and lack of prosecution, relying on Supreme Court precedents that allow quashing in such circumstances despite non-compoundable offences.

Contentions of Respondents

Not explicitly elaborated in the document; the de facto complainants’ affidavits indicate settlement and non-prosecution; the State is represented by the Public Prosecutor. The judgment does not set out detailed counter-submissions beyond these submissions and affidavits.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Joshi v. State of Haryana2003(2) KLT 1062(SC)PositiveCited to support quashing where settlement exists and non-prosecution of the complainant is evident; demonstrates that even non-compoundable offences may be quashed in appropriate circumstances.
Madan Mohan Abbot v. StateAIR 2008 (SC) 1969PositiveUsed to justify quashing under inherent powers when settlements are in place and prosecution would cause hardship.
Nikhil Merchant v. C.B.I2008(3) KLT 769PositiveCited as authority for quashing under Section 482 CrPC in the presence of settlement and de facto complainant’s lack of prosecution.
Manoj Sharma v. State2008 (4) KLT 417PositiveCited to support exercise of quashing in appropriate settlement scenarios.

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.MC.No. 1725 of 2012 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 A.M.SHAFFIQUE** ## **WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/23RD JYAISHTA 1934** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1725 of 2012 ()** **-------------------------(TO QUASH ANNEXURE A1 FIR AND ALL OTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CC 231/09 (CRIME 12/2009 OF CHENGAMANAD POLICE STATION) ON THE PENDING FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT I ALUVA)** **...............................................................................** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 7 :** **----------------------------------------------------** **1. SUNIL, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.SUBRAMANYAN, PLAKKAL HOUSE, KULAVAN KUNNIL, CHENGAMANAD VILLAGE.** **2. AJAYA KUMAR, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.SUBRAMANYAN, PLAKKAL HOUSE, KULAVAN KUNNIL, CHENGAMANAD VILLAGE.** **3. ELDHOSE, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. YACKOB, KAIPARAMBATTU HOUSE, KULAVAN KUNNIL, CHENGAMANAD VILLAGE.** **4. SHANEEB, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. KUNJU MARAKKAR, PALLIPARAMBU HOUSE, KULAVAN KUNNIL, CHENGAMANAD VILLAGE.** **5. SYAM SANKAR, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. SIVA SANKARAN, SOUPARNIKA HOUSE, KULAVAN KUNNIL, CHENGAMANAD VILLAGE.** **6. PRAVEEN KUMAR, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNAN KUTTY, PUNNAKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KULAVAN KUNNIL, CHENGAMANAD VILLAGE.** **AMV** **Contd...2/-** **: 2 :** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1725 of 2012 ()** **7. NAZAR, AGED 46 YEARS** , **S/O. ABUBAKKAR, PUNNAKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE** , **KULAVAN KUNNIL, CHENGAMANAD VILLAGE.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE** **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS :** **-----------------------------------------------** **1. VIPIN, AGED 17 YEARS, S/O. AYYAPPAN, PATHIRA VELI VEETTIL, KOLAVAN KUNNIL, PALAPRASSERY KARA, CHENGAMANAD VILLAGE** , **PIN - 683 578.** **2. MANOJ, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. RAMAN, THATTAM PARAMBIL VEETTIL, KOLAVAN KUNNIL, PALAPRASSERY KARA, CHENGAMANAD VILLAGE, PIN - 683 578.** **3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-31.** - **BY ADV. SRI.J.ABHILASH BY SRI.JOSE ADIYODI A.J., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **AMV** **Contd...3/-** **: 3 :** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1725 of 2012 ()** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S) ANNEXURES :** **ANNEXURE A1 : COPY OF THE FIR IN CC 231/09 (CRIME 12/2009 OF CHENGAMANAD POLICE STATION). ANNEXURE A2 : COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A3 : COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL** ## **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO JUDGE** ## **AMV** ## **A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * * *** Crl.M.C.No. 1725 of 2012 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 13[th] day of June 2012 ## **O R D E R** This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing all proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No.12 of 2009 of Chengamanad Police Station pending as C.C.No.231 of 2009 of JFCM Court I Aluva. 2. It is alleged that the petitioners were involved in commission of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 447, 323 read with section 149 of I.P.C. Annexure A1 is the FIR. 3. The de-facto complainant and injured/respondents 1 and 2 have filed affidavits as Annexure A2 and A3 stating that the matter has been settled between the parties and they do not intend to prosecute the case against the petitioners. The conflict had arisen during election in connection with scratching of posters. 4. Though certain offences are not compoundable, in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in **Joshi v. State of** **Haryana [2003(2)KLT 1062(SC)]Madan Mohan Abbot v.** Crl.M.C..No.1725/12 2 **State of Punjab [AIR 2008 (S.C.) 1969], Nikhil Merchant v. C.B.I [2008(3) KLT 769]** and **Manoj Sharma v. State [2008 (4) KLT 417]** , the prosecution against the accused can be quashed under certain circumstances. 5. As matters stand settled as is evident from the affidavit and especially in view of the fact that the de facto complainant does not intend to proceed with the case, there is no point in proceeding with the investigation or prosecution of the case any further and it will lead to unnecessary hardship to the de facto complainant and injured. Hence the principles adopted in the above judgments can be applied to the facts of this case also. 6. In the above circumstances, all proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No.12 of 2009 of Chengamanad Police Station pending as C.C.No.231 of 2009 of JFCM Court I Aluva are quashed. Crl.M.C is disposed of as above. (sd/-) ## **(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)** jsr Crl.M.C..No.1725/12 3 Crl.M.C..No.1725/12 4 Crl.M.C..No.1725/12 5 ## **THOMAS.P.JOSEPH,J.** Crl.M.C.No. of 200 ORDER 19/01/2011