High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2019-11-11The Crl.M.Cs are disposed of; the impugned proc...

Crl.M.C.No.3065/2019(C) & 3075/2019(D), High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C.No.3065/2019(C) & 3075/2019(D)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Alexander Thomas
Judgment Date: 2019-11-11
Court Decision / Holding: i) The impugned Anx-A1 Final Report in Crime No.371/2016 of Pookottumpadam Police Station, now SC No.644/2017 before the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act cases, Manjeri, and all further proceedings arising therefrom will stand quashed under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. ii) The impugned Anx-A1 Final Report in Crime No.357/2016 of Pookottumpadam Police Station, now CC No.358/2017 before the Additional Sessions Court-II, Manjeri, and all further proceedings arising therefrom will stand quashed under Sec.482 Cr.P.C.
Final Disposition: The Crl.M.Cs are disposed of; the impugned proceedings are quashed and no further proceedings shall be continued in either case.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Athul Geo
Bindu Mari
Geo Mathew

Respondents

State of Kerala
Athul Geo
Bindu Mari
Geo Mathew

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Thomas J. Annakkallunkal
• Sri. V.A. Johnson (Varikkappallil)

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
• V.A. Johnson (Varikkappallil)
• Thomas J. Annakkallunkal

Case Synopsis & Summary

These are two Criminal Miscellaneous Cases (Crl.M.C. Nos. 3065/2019 and 3075/2019) filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court of Kerala, challenging two parallel criminal proceedings that arose from a pair of ‘case and counter-case’ disputes between family members. Crl.M.C.3065/2019 relates to Crime No.371/2016 of Pookottumpadam Police Station (now SC No.644/2017 before the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act, Manjeri), with Athul Geo as the accused and Bindu Mari as the de facto complainant; Crl.M.C.3075/2019 relates to Crime No.357/2016 of the same police station (now CC No.358/2017 before the Additional Sessions Court II, Manjeri), with Geo Mathew and Bindu Mari as petitioners and Athul Geo as the de facto complainant. The petitions contend that the disputes have been settled by affidavits, and continuing the prosecutions would serve no purpose or waste judicial time. The High Court relies on Supreme Court dicta in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab to apply the inherent power under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. to quash prosecutions where a genuine settlement exists, even in non‑compoundable offences. On finding a real settlement and considering the circumstances, the court allows the prayers and quashes the final reports and all further proceedings. The orders also reflect that the petitions are disposed of accordingly.”,

Provisions of Law Cited

Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C.Secs. 451, 354, 394, 506(i) & 34 IPCSecs. 3(2)(v)(a) & 3(1)(w)(i) of the SC/ST (POA) ActSec. 326 IPCSec. 308 r/w Sec. 34 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Inherent powers of the High Court under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C.
Quashing of criminal proceedings where the disputes are settled and continuation serves no useful purpose
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr (2014) 6 SCC 466

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants contended that the entire disputes between the parties have been resolved by affidavits/settlements and that continuing the criminal proceedings would be futile and a waste of judicial time. Relying on the Supreme Court's decisions in Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, they urged quashing of the impugned proceedings under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. on the ground that settlement fully resolves the disputes and there is no public interest in continuing the prosecutions, even if some offences are non-compoundable.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents acknowledge the dispute and rely on the affidavits of settlement, and on the consent of the parties to quash the proceedings. They emphasise conserving judicial resources while ensuring the settled relationships are protected. In light of the affidavits and the settled position, the High Court exercises its inherent powers under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings, consistent with Gian Singh and Narinder Singh.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	(2012) 10 SCC 303	Positive	Cited as the leading authority on invoking Sec.482 Cr.P.C. to quash prosecutions where disputes are settled, including non‑compoundable offences.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr	(2014) 6 SCC 466	Positive	Cited for the principle that settlement may justify quashing where continued prosecution serves no useful purpose.

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.3065/2019(C) & 3075/2019(D), 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 ALEXANDER THOMAS** **MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 20TH KARTHIKA, 1941** ## **Crl.MC.No.3065 OF 2019(C)** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 644/2017 OF SPECIAL COURT (ATROCITIES AGAINST SC/ST), MANJERI CRIME NO.371/2016 OF POOKOTTUMPADAM POLICE STATION , Malappuram** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **ATHUL GEO, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O GEO MATHEW, ULAKAMTHARA HOUSE, POOKKOTTUMPADAM PO, AMARAMBALAM VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 332.** **BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,**| ||**HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.**| |**2**|**BINDU MARI, AGED 33 YEARS**| ||**W/O GEO MATHEW, CHEMMANUR UURU, CHEMMANUR,**| ||**ATTAPADY, MANNARKKAD TALUK,**| ||**KALKANDI PO, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 582.**| ||**R2 BY ADV. V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)**| ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SRI.T.R.RENJITH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.11.2019, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.3075/2019(D), Crl.Rev.Pet.492/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ::2:: Crl.M.C.Nos.3065 & 3075 Of 2019 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 20TH KARTHIKA, 1941** ## **Crl.MC.No.3075 OF 2019(D)** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 358/2017 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - II, MANJERI CRIME NO.357/2016 OF POOKOTTUMPADAM POLICE STATION , Malappuram** ## **PETITIONER/S:** |**1**|**GEO MATHEW, AGED 60 YEARS**| |---|---| ||**S/O.MATHEW,CHEMMANNUR UURU,**| ||**CHEMMANUR,ATTAPADY,MANNARKKAD TALUK,**| ||**KALKANDI.P.O,PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678582.**| |**2**|**BINDU MARI, AGED 33 YEARS**| ||**W/O.GEO MATHEW,CHEMMANUR UURU,**| ||**CHEMMANUR,ATTAPADY,MANNARKKAD**| ||**TALUK,KALKANDI.P.O,PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678582.**| ||**BY ADV. SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)**| ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,**| ||**HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM-682031.**| |**2**|**ATHUL GEO, S/O.GEO MATHEW,ULAKAMTHARA HOUSE,**| ||**POOKKOTTUMPADAM.P.O,AMARAMBALAM VILLAGE,**| ||**MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679332.**| ||**R2 BY ADV. THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL**| **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.11.2019, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.3065/2019(C), Crl.Rev.Pet.492/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ::3:: Crl.M.C.Nos.3065 & 3075 Of 2019 ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J** . ----------------------------Crl.M.C.Nos.3065 & 3075 Of 2019 --------------------------------Dated this the 11[th] day of November, 2019. ## **O R D E R** The prayers made in these two Crl.M.Cs filed under Sec.482 of the Cr.PC invoking the inherent powers conferred on this Court as per that provision is to quash respective impugned criminal proceedings in these cases which essentially arise out of two crimes which are said to be case and counter case and the prayer for quashment in each of these cases is made on the basis of settlement arrived at between the accused persons and defacto complainant. 2. Crl.M.C.No.3065/2019 arises out of Anx-A1 Final Report in Crime No.371/2016 of Pookottumpadam Police Station, Malappuram District, which has been registered for offences punishable under Secs.451, 354, 394, 506(i) & 34 of the I.P.C and Secs.3(2)(v)(a) & 3(1)(w)(i) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, which is now pending as S.C.No.644/2017 on the file of the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act cases, Manjeri, in which the petitioner herein is the accused therein and the 2[nd] respondent herein is the de facto ::4:: Crl.M.C.Nos.3065 & 3075 Of 2019 complainant therein in relation to that crime. The 2[nd] respondent is the 2[nd] wife of the petitioner's father. 3. Crl.M.C.No.3075/2019 arises out of counter case viz., Anx-A1 Final Report in Crime No.357/2016 of Pookottumpadam Police Station, Malappuram District, which has been registered for offences punishable under Secs.326, 308 r/w Sec.34 of the I.P.C, and which is now pending as C.C.No.358/2017 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-II, Manjeri. The petitioners herein are husband and wife and the 2[nd] respondent- de facto complainant is the son of the 1[st] petitioner. The 2[nd] respondent/defacto complainant in Crl.M.C.No.3065/2019 is the 2[nd] petitioner/A2 in Crl.M.C.No.3075/2019. 4. Both these cases arise out of the temperamental differences and misunderstanding between the parties. It is brought on record that the contesting respondent in respective Crl.M.Cs have sworn to affidavits produced as annexures therein, whereby the respective de facto complainants have stated that the entire disputes against the petitioners/accused, have been fully settled and that they have no objection in quashing the pending criminal proceedings against the petitioners in respective Crl.M.Cs. ::5:: Crl.M.C.Nos.3065 & 3075 Of 2019 It is in the light of these aspects that the petitioners in the respective CrlM.Cs have preferred the above Crl.M.Cs with the prayer to quash the respective impugned criminal proceedings against them. 5. 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 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**_ ::6:: Crl.M.C.Nos.3065 & 3075 Of 2019 ## _**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. 6. Accordingly, the following orders and directions are issued: (i) It is ordered in Crl.M.C.No.3065/2019 that the impugned Anx-A1 Final Report in Crime No.371/2016 of Pookottumpadam Police Station, Malappuram District, which is now pending as S.C.No.644/2017 on the file of the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act cases, Manjeri and all further proceedings arising therefrom pending against the accused therein will stand quashed under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (ii) It is also ordered in Crl.M.C.No.3075/2019 that the impugned Anx-A1 Final Report in Crime No.357/2016 of Pookottumpadam Police Station, Malappuram District, which is now pending as C.C.No.358/2017 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-II, Manjeri and all further proceedings arising therefrom pending against the accused therein will stand quashed under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. With these observations and directions, the above Crl.M.Cs will stand finally disposed of. **Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.** bkn/- ::7:: Crl.M.C.Nos.3065 & 3075 Of 2019 ## **APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 3065/2019** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE REFER REPORT IN CRIME NO.371/2016 OF POOKOTTUMPADAM POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PROTEST COMPLAINT DATED 23.6.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE SPECIAL COURT FOR SC/ST (POA) ACT CASES, MANJERI. ANNEXURE A3 AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT** ## **APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 3075/2019** |**PETITIONER'S/S**|**EXHIBITS:**|||| |---|---|---|---|---| |**ANNEXURE A1**|**CERTIFIED COPY OF THE **|**FINAL **|**REPORT **|**IN**| ||**S.C.NO.358/2017 BEFORE **|**THE **|**ADDITIONAL**|| ||**SESSIONS COURT II,MANJERI.**|||| |**ANNEXURE A2**|**AFFIDAVIT**<br>**SWORN**<br>**IN**|**BY**|**THE**|**2ND**| ||**RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT.**||||