High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-02-26Criminal Miscellaneous Case allowed; FIR and Fi...

CRL.M.C.NO.861 OF 2021 (G) - Binu Lal & Others vs. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:CRL.M.C.NO.861 OF 2021

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: V.G. Arun
Judgment Date: 2021-02-26
Court Decision / Holding: The CrL.M.C is allowed; FIR No. 382/2013 and Final Report in CC No. 646/2019, as well as the ongoing proceedings in Crime 382/2013, are quashed and further proceedings are closed.
Final Disposition: Criminal Miscellaneous Case allowed; FIR and Final Report quashed; proceedings in Crime No.382/2013 and CC No.646/2019 terminated.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

BINU LAL
AJAYAN
PREMLAL
JAYAN
SATHEESH
JOHN @ BENZIAR
BINU
SUNIL @ DAMODHARAN
MANIYAN @ TAILOR MANI
BIJU
VIJAYA RAJ
VIJAYA DAS
SELVANESAN
SHINU
SAJIN @ LOTTARY
HAPPYMON
SHIJU
ARUN
SAGAR
PRAMESH KUMAR
SHINE
RATNA SIKHAMANI
RAJESH
AKHIL

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Shibukumar
Chandran
Raveendran
Rajasekharan

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. R. T. Pradeep
• Sri. K. C. Harish

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. V. Vijulal

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case arises from Crime No.382/2013 registered at Parassala Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, and pending as CC No.646/2019 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Neyyattinkara. The petition, filed by 24 petitioners/accused, challenges the FIR and the final report on the basis that the dispute between parishioners of a church and devotees of a temple at Vlathankara, Machiyode, Chenkal, Thiruvananthapuram, has been amicably settled and that continued proceedings serve no public interest. CW1–CW5 affidavits (CW3 deceased) and a supporting affidavit from the Secretary of Sreekrishna Temple state the dispute is resolved and peace restored. The Public Prosecutor indicates the petitioners have no criminal antecedents. The Kerala High Court, noting the settlement and peace brought to the area, and that the likelihood of conviction is remote, accepts that continuing the case would amount to abuse of process. Relying on Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, the court allows the CrL.M.C, quashes the FIR and final report in CC 646/2019 and further proceedings in Crime No.382/2013. The order reflects that there is no impediment to relief sought, and the proceedings are thereby closed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 143 IPCSection 145 IPCSection 147 IPCSection 148 IPCSection 149 IPCSection 153A IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Abuse of process of the court
Peaceful settlement as a basis for quashing criminal proceedings

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petition contends that the dispute between church parishioners and temple devotees has been resolved amicably, resulting in restoration of peace. There is no subsisting grievance and continuing criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process; and given the settlement, the chances of conviction are remote. The petition relies on Supreme Court precedents that permit quashing where settlement exists and public interest is not involved, notably Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents, supported by affidavits from CW1–CW5 and the temple secretary, affirm that the dispute has been settled and peace restored, with no ongoing grievance; affidavits express consent to quash. The public interest in pursuing criminal proceedings is said to be lacking in light of the settlement and social peace in the area; the matter was considered with the Public Prosecutor noting absence of prior criminal history for petitioners.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab	[(2008) 4 SCC 582]	Positive	Used to support the proposition that quashing is permissible where settlement exists and there is no public interest in continuing proceedings; recognizes abuse of process as a consideration.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another	[(2012) 10 SCC 303]	Positive	Cited to reinforce that settlement and peace in the area can justify quashing criminal proceedings, subject to no public interest in continuing the case.

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.861 OF 2021 (G) - Binu Lal & Others vs. State of Kerala 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 V.G.ARUN** ## **FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1942** ## **Crl.MC.No.861 OF 2021(G)** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 646/2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,NEYYATTINKARA** **CRIME NO.382/2013 OF PARASSALA POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED (A1) TO (A24):** |**1**|**BINU LAL**| |---|---| ||**AGED 44 YEARS**| ||**S/O. PATHROS, VANIYAKUDY VEEDU, KEEZHMAKAM WARD,**| ||**MACHIYOD, CHENKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM**| ||**DISTRICT.**| |**2**|**AJAYAN**| ||**AGED 25 YEARS**| ||**S/O. RAVI, KADUKKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, KEEZHMAKAM DESOM,**| ||**CHENKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.**| |**3**|**PREMLAL**| ||**AGED 35 YEARS**| ||**S/O. DIVAKARAN, MUTTAVILA VEEDU, MACHIYOD, CHENKAL**| ||**VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.**| |**4**|**JAYAN**| ||**AGED 31 YEARS**| ||**S/O. DAS, KUZHIVILA VEEDU, KEEZHMAKAM, CHENKAL**| ||**VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.**| |**5**|**SATHEESH**| ||**AGED 42 YEARS**| ||**S/O. SATHYANESAN, VALIYAVILA VEEDU, CHENKAL VILLAGE,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.**| |**6**|**JOHN @ BENZIAR**| ||**AGED 46 YEARS**| ||**S/O. CHELLAYYAN NADAR, POTTAVILA VEEDU, MACHIYOD,**| ||**CHENKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.**| |**7**|**BINU**| ||**AGED 37 YEARS**| ||**S/O. KRISHNAN NADAR, MANNADI VEEDU, UMMANGAL,**| ||**VLATHANKARA, MACHIYOD, CHENKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM**| ||**DISTRICT.**| CRL.M.C.NO.861 OF 2021 2 - **8 SUNIL @ DAMODHARAN AGED 41 YEARS** - **S/O. DASAYYAN NADAR, UTHRAM VEEDU, VLATHANKARA, MACHIYOD, CHENKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** - **9 MANIYAN @ TAILOR MANI AGED 47 YEARS** - **S/O. MARIYA MICHEL, PLANKALA VEEDU, CHEMMANNUVILA, MACHIYOD, CHENKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** - **10 BIJU AGED 36 YEARS S/O. DASAN, THENGUM MANNADI VEEDU, VLATHANKARA, CHENKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** - **11 VIJAYA RAJ AGED 50 YEARS S/O. MUTHAYYAN NADAR, PLANKALA VEEDU, VLATHANKARA, MACHIYOD, CHENKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** - **12 VIJAYA DAS AGED 47 YEARS S/O. PONNUMUTHAN, OORANVILA PUTHUVAL VEEDU, VENKADAMBU, KULATHOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** **13 SELVANESAN AGED 59 YEARS S/O. CHELLAYYAN, S. P. COTTAGE, VLATHANKARA, MACHIYOD, CHENKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** - **14 SHINU AGED 26 YEARS S/O. SATHYANESAN, S. K. BHAVAN, KARIYATHANPAZHINJI, MACHIYOD, CHENKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** - **15 SAJIN @ LOTTARY AGED 23 YEARS** - **S/O. CHRISTUDAS, UDIKKATTU MANNADI VEEDU, MACHIYOD, CHENKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** - **16 HAPPYMON AGED 34 YEARS** **S/O. RATNAMMA, PR COTTGE, VLATHANKARA, MACHIYOD DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** **17 SHIJU AGED 25 YEARS S/O. SATHYANESAN, S. K. BHAVAN, PAZHINJI** CRL.M.C.NO.861 OF 2021 3 ## **CHEMMANNUVILA, KARIYATHAL, KEEZHMAKAM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** ## **18 ARUN** **AGED 39 YEARS** **S/O. VARGHEESE, V. S. BHAVAN, VLATHANKARA, MACHIYOD DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** ## **19 SAGAR** **AGED 39 YEARS** **S/O. RAGHAVAN NADAR, KALLINGAL VEEDU, VLATHANKARA, MACHIYODE DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** - **20 PRAMESH KUMAR AGED 23 YEARS** **S/O. FRANCIS, TRISON VILLA, VLATHANKARA, MACHIYODE DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** - **21 SHINE AGED 33 YEARS** **S/O. VARGHESE @ KOTTARA VARGHESE, EJ COTTAGE, VLATHANKARA, MACHIYODE DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** - **22 RATNA SIKHAMANI AGED 48 YEARS** **S/O. PONNUMUTHAN, MAVADITHALA VEEDU, CHENKAL DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** **23 RAJESH AGED 24 YEARS S/O. SADANANDAN, KOVILVILA VEEDU, KEEZHMAKAM DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** **24 AKHIL AGED 21 YEARS S/O. SUKUMARAN, SR BHAVAN, KEEZHMAKAM DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.K.C.HARISH** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE &CW1, CW2, CW4, CW5 &CW6:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.** CRL.M.C.NO.861 OF 2021 4 **2 SHIBUKUMAR AGED 45 YEARS SHIBUKUMAR, S/O. NELSON, LEKHA SADANAM, VLATHANKARA, MACHIYODE DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, CHENKAL P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695132.** **3 CHANDRAN AGED 50 YEARS** **S/O. THANKACHAN NADAR, KALLINGAL VEETTIL, VLATHANKARA, MACHIYODE DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, CHENKAL P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695132.** **4 RAVEENDRAN AGED 45 YEARS** **S/O. YOHANNAN, RS BHAVAN, VETTIVILA, NOCHIYOOR DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, CHENKAL P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695132.** **5 RAJASEKHARAN AGED 60 YEARS** **S/O. SADASIVAN NADAR, ALINGAMANNADI VEETTIL, VLATHANKARA, MACHIYODE DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, CHENKAL P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695132.** **R2-5 BY ADV. SRI.V.VIJULAL** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SR.PP.C.S.HRITHWIK** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** CRL.M.C.NO.861 OF 2021 5 ## **O R D E R** ## **Dated this the 26th day of February 2021** Petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 24 in Crime No.382/2013 registered at the Parassala Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram for offences punishable under Sections 143, 145, 147, 148, 149 & 153A of IPC, now pending as C.C.No.646/2019 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Court-II, Neyyattinkara. The incident occurred pursuant to a dispute between the parishioners of a church and devotees of a temple. The case was registered by the Parassala Police suo motu. The independent witnesses, who gave statements to the Police are shown as CW1 to CW5 in the final report. Among those witnesses, CW3 is no more and the others are arrayed as respondents 2 to 5 herein. Annexure-III to Annexure-VI affidavits have been filed by the respondents Nos.2 to 5, stating that the dispute, CRL.M.C.NO.861 OF 2021 6 which was the reason for the incident and registration of the crime, has been resolved amicably and they have no subsisting grievance against the petitioners. Annexure-VII affidavit has been filed by the Secretary, Sreekrishna Swamy Temple, Vlathankara stating that on the dispute being resolved, peace has been restored in the area. 2. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also, who, on instructions, submits that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents. 3. Having considered the gravity of the offences alleged, nature of the injury caused and having perused the affidavits filed by the respondents Nos.2 to 5, the contents of which are submitted to be true and voluntary, I am satisfied that the dispute is settled and no public interest is involved in this matter. The fact that the settlement has brought about peace in the area is also a relevant consideration. Moreover, in view of the settlement, possibility of the criminal proceedings ending in CRL.M.C.NO.861 OF 2021 7 conviction is remote. As such, continuance of the proceedings will amount to an abuse of process of court and hence, in view of the legal position set out by the Honourable Supreme Court in _**Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab**_ [(2008) 4 SCC 582] and _**Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another**_ [(2012) 10 SCC 303], there is no impediment in granting the relief sought. In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure-I First Information Report & Annexure-II Final Report in C.C.No.646/2019 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Court-II, Neyyattinkara and further proceedings in connection with Crime No.382/2013 of Parassala Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, are quashed. **Sd/-** **V.G.ARUN** **JUDGE** NB CRL.M.C.NO.861 OF 2021 0 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** ## **ANNEXURE I** **TRUE COPY OF FIR DATED 29.03.2013 IN CRIME NO.382/2013 OF PARASSALA POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT NIL DATED IN CRIME NO.382/2013 OF PARASSALA POLICE STATION BEFORE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -II, NEYYATTINKARA.** **ANNEXURE III AFFIDAVIT OF CW1 DATED 24.01.2020 EXPRESSING HIS UNEQUIVOCAL CONSENT TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS.** **ANNEXURE IV AFFIDAVIT OF CW2 DATED 24.01.2020 EXPRESSING HIS UNEQUIVOCAL CONSENT TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS.** **ANNEXURE V AFFIDAVIT OF CW4 DATED 24.01.2020 EXPRESSING HIS UNEQUIVOCAL CONSENT TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS.** **ANNEXURE VI AFFIDAVIT OF CW5 DATED 24.01.2020 EXPRESSING HIS UNEQUIVOCAL CONSENT TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL** TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE