High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2012-06-13Quashed

Crl.M.C.No.1741 of 2012

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C.No.1741 of 2012

Neutral Citation:null

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A.M. Shaffique
Judgment Date: 2012-06-13
Court Decision / Holding: All proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No.113 of 2012 of Kongad Police Station pending before the JFCM Court-I Palakkad are quashed. Crl.M.C. is disposed of as above.
Final Disposition: Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

PRAVEEN
RATHEESH @ THAMBI @ THAMBIKUTTY
MAHESH
C.S.MUJEEB RAHIMAN
PRAVEEN, S/O. SWAMINATHAN
MOHANAKUMAR @ UNNIKUTTAN
VANESH
VINU
PRAKASHAN
KANAKAN S/O.KUTTIKRISHNAN
UMMER
SAJU K.B
RAMESH

Respondents

STATE OF KERALA
SHANOOB
SULFIKAR

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K.K. DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor JOSE AEDAIODI A.J.
• VINOD KUMAR.C

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C. No.1741/2012) decided by a single-judge bench of the Kerala High Court. The petition, filed under Section 482 CrPC, seeks to quash Crime No.113 of 2012 registered at Kongad Police Station and pending before the JFCM Court-I, Palakkad, involving 13 petitioners accused in alleged offences under IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 308 and 506(ii) r/w Section 149 IPC. The de facto complainant and injured respondents (2 and 3) have sworn affidavits stating that the matter has been settled and they do not intend to prosecute the petitioners, while alleging the accused were not involved. The petitioners rely on Supreme Court precedents — Joshi v. State of Haryana, Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, Nikhil Merchant v. CBI, and Manoj Sharma v. State — to argue that continuation of the proceedings would cause unnecessary hardship and that quashing is permissible in such circumstances. The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, aligns with this stance in light of the affidavits and settlement. The court holds that given the settlement and lack of intent to proceed, and in view of the cited precedents, continuing the prosecution would be unwarranted. Accordingly, all proceedings against the petitioners are quashed, and the Crl.M.C. is disposed of.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 308, 506(ii) read with section 149 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Settlement and compromise can justify quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC
Judicial discretion to quash under CrPC 482 in light of affidavits and settlement, to avoid unnecessary hardship to the complainant
Some offences not ordinarily compoundable may be quashed under appropriate circumstances when parties settle and there is no public interest in continuing prosecution

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that the case should be quashed under CrPC 482 because the de facto complainant and injured have settled, they do not intend to prosecute, and continuing would amount to unnecessary hardship. They rely on Supreme Court rulings recognizing restraint on prosecution in settlement scenarios, including circumstances where offences may not be strictly compoundable but quashing is allowed to avoid injustice and harassment.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents state that the de facto complainant and injured have settled the matter and do not intend to prosecute, as evidenced by affidavits. They submit that the court may exercise its inherent power under CrPC 482 to quash, especially when continuing would serve no public interest and would cause unnecessary hardship, aligning with the cited precedents.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Joshi v. State of Haryana	2003(2)KLT 1062(SC)	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that quashing under CrPC 482 is permissible in appropriate settlement circumstances.
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab	AIR 2008 SC 1969	Positive	Presents the principle that quashing can be ordered despite offences being non-compoundable in suitable cases involving settlement.
Nikhil Merchant v. CBI	2008(3)KLT 769	Positive	Supports settlement-based quashing in appropriate circumstances as a valid exercise of the inherent power.
Manoj Sharma v. State	2008(4)KLT 417	Positive	Affirms that quashing may be warranted when there is a settlement and lack of prosecution intent.

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.No.1741 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. 1741 of 2012 ()** **-------------------------CRIME NO. 113/2012 OF KONGAD POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT ----------------** ## **PETITIONERS / ACCUSED 1 TO 13 :** **--------------------------------------------------** ## **1. PRAVEEN** - **S/O.RAMACHANDRAN PRASATH NIVAS, NAMBULLIPURA, MUNDUR PALAKKAD.** **2. RATHEESH @ THAMBI @ THAMBIKUTTY S/O.CHAMIYAR, KULAMULLI VEEDU, NAMBULLIPURA MUNDUR, PALAKKAD.** ## **3. MAHESH** - **S/O.MANIKANDAN, NAMBULLIPURA, MUNDUR PALAKKAD.** **4. C.S.MUJEEB RAHIMAN** - **S/O.SAITHALAVI, CHETTUMBAKA HOUSE, KULAMULLI NAMBULLIPURA, MUNDUR, PALAKKAD.** **5. PRAVEEN, S/O. SWAMINATHAN, NAMBULLIPURA, PALAKKAD.** **6. MOHANAKUMAR @ UNNIKUTTAN S/O.CHELLAPPAN, KULAMULLI, NAMBULLIPURA PALAKKAD.** ## **7. VANESH** - **S/O.RAJAN, KUNNATHU VEEDU, NAMBULLIPURA MUNDUR, PALAKKAD.** ## **8. VINU** - **S/O.PONNU, NAMBULLIPURA, MUNDUR PALAKKAD.** ## **9. PRAKASHAN** - **S/O.VELAYUDHASWAMY, KUNNATHVEEDU, NAMBULLIPURA MUNDUR, PALAKKAD.** **10. KANAKAN S/O.KUTTIKRISHNAN, NAMBULLIPURA, MUNDUR PALAKKAD.** **...2/-** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1741 of 2012 () -2-** ## **11. UMMER** - **S/O.HUSSAINAR, CHETTUMPAKA HOUSE, NAMBULLIPURA MUNDUR, PALAKKAD.** ## **12. SAJU K.B** - **S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, KUNNATHU VEEDU, NAMBULLIPURA MUNDUR, PALAKKAD.** ## **13. RAMESH** **S/O.KANDAMUTHAN, KULAMULLY HOSUE, NAMBULLIPURA MUNDUR, PALAKKAD.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN** ## **COMPLAINANT(S):** ## **---------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA** - **REPRESENTED BY S.I OF POLICE, KONGAD POLICE STATION THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM.** ## **2. SHANOOB** ## **S/O.ALIMUTHU, CHARLIKKAD VEEDU, NAMBULLIPURA** - **MUNDUR, PALAKKAD.** ## **3. SULFIKAR** **S/O.HAMSA,RESIDING AT NAMBULLIPURA, MUNDUR PALAKKAD.** ## **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JOSE AEDAIODI A.J. R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Mn** **...2/-** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1741 of 2012 ()** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :** **ANNEXURE 1. COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.113/12 OF KONGAD POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE 2. COPY OF REPORT BY INVESTIGATING OFFICER. ANNEXURE 3. COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ANNEXURE 4. COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **Mn** ## **A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * * *** Crl.M.C.No. 1741 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.113 of 2012 of Kongad Police Station pending before the JFCM Court-I Palakkad. 2. It is alleged that the petitioners were involved in commission of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 308 and 506(ii) read with section 149 of I.P.C. Annexure 1 is the FIR. Annexure 2 is the list of accused filed later showing the names of the petitioners. 3. The de-facto complainant and injured /respondents 2 and 3 have filed affidavits as Annexure 3 and 4 stating that the matter has been settled between the parties and they do not intend to prosecute the case against the petitioners. According to them the accused were not involved in the crime.. 4. Though certain offences are not compoundable, in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in **Joshi v. State of** Crl.M.C..No.1741/12 2 **Haryana [2003(2)KLT 1062(SC)]Madan Mohan Abbot v. 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 and injured do 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.113 of 2012 of Kongadu Police Station pending before the JFCM Court-I Palakkad are quashed. Crl.M.C is disposed of as above. (sd/-) ## **(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)** jsr Crl.M.C..No.1741/12 3 Crl.M.C..No.1741/12 4 Crl.M.C..No.1741/12 5 ## **THOMAS.P.JOSEPH,J.** Crl.M.C.No. of 200 ORDER 19/01/2011