High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-09-25Conviction and sentence set aside; all proceedi...

Dasan s/o Kunhambu v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:CRL.R.P. No.1966 of 2011

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2023-09-25
Court Decision / Holding: By invoking its Section 482 Cr.P.C powers, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence recorded in the Sessions Court and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, quashed all proceedings in Crime No.399/2003, cancelled the bail bonds, and directed that any fine already remitted be released to the de facto complainant. The revision petition is allowed and the relationship between the parties is preserved in the interest of justice.
Final Disposition: Conviction and sentence set aside; all proceedings in Crime No.399/2003 quashed; bail bonds cancelled; any fine remitted to the de facto complainant; revision petition allowed; matter disposed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Dasan s/o Kunhambu

Respondents

State of Kerala
V.V. Chandrasekharan

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. P. K. Ravisankar

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt Puspalatha M K
• Sri D. Anil Kumar

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court criminal revision by Dasan challenging a conviction under Section 326 IPC and the accompanying sentence recorded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Sessions Court. The prosecution case is that on 02.12.2003, while CW1 was returning along a public road at Anjarakandi, the accused attacked him with a spade handle in a premeditated act of enmity, causing grievous hurt and a financial loss of around Rs. 11,000. The Trial Court convicted Dasan under Section 326 IPC and sentenced him to three years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000 and an additional six months’ imprisonment for default. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence. During hearing, it emerged that the dispute had been amicably settled; the De facto complainant (second respondent) filed an affidavit confirming settlement and Dasan paid Rs.25,000 as compensation. The State supported the revision petition, stating the settlement is genuine and bonafide, and had no objection. Relying on Soban v. State of Kerala and precedents including Gian Singh and Renjith, the High Court invoked its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the conviction and all related proceedings, arguing that the ends of justice and avoidance of abuse of process justify quashing in a compoundable offence in this context. The revision petition is thereby allowed, with the conviction set aside and proceedings quashed, and related orders adjusted accordingly.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 326 IPCSection 313 Cr.P.C.Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ends of justice
Prevention of abuse of the process of the Court
Quashing of criminal proceedings involving compoundable offences under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when ends of justice require (as guided by Gian Singh)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the High Court can exercise inherent powers to quash a criminal conviction where there is a genuine and bonafide settlement in a compoundable offence, which serves ends of justice and prevents abuse of process. The revision relies on established precedents (Gian Singh, Soban) that permit quashing in the interest of justice when ongoing proceedings would be unjust or oppressive post-settlement, and that the settlement is genuine, with compensation paid.

Contentions of Respondents

The State and the de facto complainant support the settlement, noting its genuineness and bonafide nature, and have no objection to allowing the revision petition. They emphasize that the conviction was properly supported by evidence and that the proceedings should not be quashed absent the proper application of law and the ends of justice.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Soban v. State of Kerala	2021 (3) KLT Online 1179	Positive	Court agrees with the principles in Soban regarding quashing criminal proceedings in the interest of justice where settlement exists.
Joshi v. State of Haryana	2008 (2) KLT 1062	Mentioned Only	Cited among precedents; not explicitly adopted or relied upon by the court in the decision.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)	Positive	Used as the guiding principle for the exercise of 482 Cr.P.C. to quash in the interests of justice.
Bitan Singh Gupta & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr.	2018 (1) KLT Online 3156 (SC)	Mentioned Only	Cited among Supreme Court precedents; not explicitly relied upon for the present order.
Renjith v. State of Kerala	2019 (4) KLT 5N41 (C. No.56)	Positive	Cited for the principle that 482 Cr.P.C. can quash if ends of justice and no bar under Gian Singh.

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 Dasan s/o Kunhambu v. 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 C.S.DIAS` ``` MONDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 3RD ASWINA, 1945 ``` ## `CRL.REV.PET NO. 1966 OF 2011` ``` (AGAINST THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE IMPOSED BY JUDGMENT DATED 25-3-2011 IN CRL.A. NO.664 OF 2005 ON THE FILE OF COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, ADHOC I, THALASSERY AGAINST THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE IMPOSED BY JUDGMENT DATED 08-11-2005 IN CC NO.23 OF 2004 ON THE FILE OF CHIEF ``` ``` JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THALASSERY) ``` ## `REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:` ``` 1DASAN S/O.KUNHAMBU, MEENOTHU THOTHEN HOUSE, ANJARAKANDY AMSOM/DESOM,, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR ``` ## `RESPONDENTS /STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:` ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2V.V.CHANDRASEKHARAN S/O.KUNJIKANNAN VALIYAVALAPPIL HOUSE, NAREEKODE MAMBA DESOM, ANJARAKANDY VILLAGE, MOZHAPPALA POST, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SMT PUSHPALATHA M K, SR PP SRI.D.ANIL KUMAR ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ``` ``` 25.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` Crl.R.P. No.1966 of 2011 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## C. S. DIAS, J. ``` ------------------------- ``` ## Crl.R.P. No.1966 of 2011 `-------------------------` Dated this the 25[th] day of September, 2023 ## ORDER The revision petition is filed challenging the correctness and propriety of the judgment passed by the Court of Sessions, Thalassery (Appellate Court) in Crl.A. No.664/2005, whereby the appeal filed by the revision petitioner was dismissed, confirming the judgment passed by the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery in C.C No.23/2004 (Trial Court), convicting the revision petitioner for an offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, ‘IPC’) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default to ``` Crl.R.P. No.1966 of 2011 ``` ``` 3 ``` undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. ## The prosecution case in brief 2. The prosecution case as that, on 02.12.2003, while CW1 was returning to his house along the public road in Anjarakandi Panchayath, the revision petitioner/accused on account of his previous enmity and with an intention to cause hurt, hit CW1 on the left side of his face and on his left leg with a spade handle and caused grievous hurt to CW1 and a loss of Rs.11,000/-. ## Trial Court 3. The revision petitioner denied the substance of accusation made against him. In trial, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW10 and marked Exts.P1 to P6 in evidence. The revision petitioner denied the incriminating ``` Crl.R.P. No.1966 of 2011 ``` ``` 4 ``` circumstances put to him in the questioning under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, ‘Cr.P.C.’). Thereafter, the revision petitioner examined DW1 and marked Exts.D1 to D3 in evidence. ## Trial Court Judgment 4. The Trial Court, after analysing the materials on record, convicted the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 326 of the IPC and ordered him to undergo sentence as stated above. ## The Appellate Court 5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the revision petitioner preferred Crl.A. No.664/2005 before the Appellate Court. ## The Appellate Court Judgment 6. The Appellate Court, after reappreciating the materials on record, dismissed ``` Crl.R.P. No.1966 of 2011 ``` ``` 5 ``` the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. 7. It is questioning the concurrent judgments of the courts below that the present revision petition is filed. 8. Heard; Sri.P.K.Ravishankar, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, Smt. Pushpalatha M.K. the learned Senior Public Prosecutor for the first respondent-State and Sri.D.Anilkumar, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/de facto complainant. 9. Today, when the revision petition was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for the parties submitted that the subject matter in dispute between the parties has been settled and the second respondent has filed an affidavit stating that the dispute has ``` Crl.R.P. No.1966 of 2011 ``` ``` 6 ``` been amicably settled and the revision petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation, and they are relatives. Therefore, the second respondent has no objection in the revision petition being allowed. 10. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the settlement arrived between the revision petitioner and the second respondent is genuine and bonafide and the State has also no objection in the revision petition being allowed. 11. This Court in Soban v. State of Kerala [2021 (3) KLT Online 1179] , after referring to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Joshi v. State of Haryana [2008 (2) KLT 1062]; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)]; Bitan Singh Gupta & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr. [2018 (1) KLT Online 3156 (SC)] ``` Crl.R.P. No.1966 of 2011 ``` ``` 7 ``` and decisions of this Court in Renjith v. State of Kerala [2019 (4) KLT 5N41 (C. No.56] has held that if the requirements of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. are satisfied, in the sense that it is necessary to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice, criminal nonproceedings involving compoundable offences can be quashed, notwithstanding the fact the order of conviction has been passed against the accused provided the offence does not fall within the category of offences prohibited to be quashed as per the guidelines laid down in Gian Singh (Supra) and the other decisions on the point. 12. I am in total agreement with the . principles laid down in Soban (Supra) 13. Having considered the facts, on reding the affidavit of the second respondent and ``` Crl.R.P. No.1966 of 2011 ``` ``` 8 ``` taking into consideration the law laid down by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the afore-cited precedents, I am inclined to invoke the plenary powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the courts below by the impugned judgments, which will augur the relationship and harmony between the parties and meet the ends of justice. 14. In the result, (i) The conviction and sentence imposed by the Court of Session, Thalassery in Crl.A. No.664/2005 and the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery in C.C. No.23/2004 are set aside. (ii) All proceedings in Crime No.399/2003 of the Chakkarakkal Police Station are quashed. ``` Crl.R.P. No.1966 of 2011 ``` **==> picture [7 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** (iii) The bail bonds executed by the revision petitioner/accused and the sureties are hereby cancelled. (iv) The fine amount, if any, remitted by the revision petitioner/accused, pursuant to the order passed by this Court, shall be released to the second respondent/de facto complainant, in accordance with law. Sd/- C. S. DIAS JUDGE SKP/25-09