High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-06-07Petition allowed; all further proceedings quash...

Deepan Babu and others v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC No. 2277 of 2016; CC 1891/2006

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
Judgment Date: 2016-06-07
Court Decision / Holding: Petition allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in CC 1891/2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Attingal, are quashed.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; all further proceedings quashed in CC 1891/2006.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Deepan Babu
Naseer
Arun
Shimjith

Respondents

State of Kerala
Nihas
Santhoshkumar

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. C. Anilkumar (Kalesseril)
• Sri. C. Y. Vinod Kumar

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Githesh R. (Public Prosecutor)
• Sri Jelson J. Edampadam

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court of Kerala, in a Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482 CrPC, deals with quashing proceedings in CC 1891/2006 arising from Chirayinkil Police Station Crime No. 68/2005. Accused Nos. 1 to 4 (Deepan Babu, Naseer, Arun, Shimjith) challenged the continuation of criminal proceedings for offences under Section 324, 323 and 427 read with Section 34 IPC, linked to an incident on 21 February 2005 in which they allegedly obstructed and manhandled the de facto complainant, a bus driver, and others. The petition argues that the matter has been amicably settled during the pendency of the case, with the parties now living in peace, and that continuing the prosecution would waste judicial time. Respondents 2 and 3 (the de facto complainant and the injured) support the compromise via affidavits (Annexures A2 and A3), stating no wish to continue the proceedings. The State, through the Public Prosecutor, indicates no objection to acting on the compromise to promote peace and harmony, noting the petitioners have no prior criminal antecedents. The court cites Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, and Yogendra Yadav to underscore that the inherent power to quash may be exercised where disputes are private, the compromise is genuine, and conviction is unlikely, to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice. On these findings, the petition is allowed and all further proceedings in CC 1891/2006 are quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of CrPCSections 324, 323 and 427 read with Section 34 of IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ends of justice
Prevention of abuse of the process of any Court
Amicable settlement can justify quashing of criminal proceedings in appropriate cases

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that the criminal case arising from Chirayinkil Police Station Crime No. 68/2005 (CC 1891/2006) is a private/ petty dispute resolved amicably between the parties. They contend that continuing the prosecution would result in unwarranted harassment and wastage of judicial time, given the parties now live in peace. They rely on the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash if the dispute has been settled, ends of justice would be served, and the likelihood of conviction is remote. They assert no criminal antecedents and stress the need to promote peace and harmony in the community.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents (de facto complainant and the injured) support settlement through affidavits (Annexures A2 and A3) and request quashing if the compromise is voluntary and genuine. The State, through the Public Prosecutor, has no objection to acting on the affidavits to promote peace, acknowledging the offences are private in nature and the settlement can avoid ongoing misery. The respondents emphasize maintaining public interest where serious offences may be at play, yet acknowledge that quashing in this case would not undermine justice because the dispute is essentially private and resolved with consent.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	(2012) 10 SCC 303	Positive	Apex Court held that High Courts can quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases on amical settlement to secure ends of justice, especially when offences are not of a public nature.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	(2014) 6 SCC 466	Positive	Reiterates the principle that compounding or settlement can justify quashing where it serves ends of justice and where continuation would be oppressive.
Yogendra Yadav and Others v State of Jharkhand and Another	(2014) 9 SCC 653	Positive	Affirms the view that amicable settlements in criminal disputes can justify quashing to promote peace and justice, where private offenses are involved.

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 Deepan Babu and others 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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/17TH JYAISHTA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 2277 of 2016 () ---------------------------** **CC 1891/2006 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURTI,ATTINGAL CRIME NO.68/2005 OF CHIRAYINKIL POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANDAPURAM DISTRICT** ## **-----------** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 4:** **--------------------------------** **1. DEEPAN BABU, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. SURENDRAN, KIZHAKKE KUNNUVILA VEEDU, VADAKKOTTUKAVU, THOTTAKKAD DESOM, KARAVARAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **2. NASEER,AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED SALI, PEROOR THADATHI COTTAGE PUTHEN VEEDU, PEROOR DESOM, KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **3. ARUN, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. HARIDAS, REVATHI VEEDU, PONGANADU DESOM, PONGANADU, KILIMANOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **4. SHIMJITH, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. JAYAKUMAR, KALLILAKKATHIL VEEDU, VADAKKOTTU KAVU, THOTTAKKADU DESOM, KARAVARAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **BY ADVS.SRI.C.ANILKUMAR (KALLESSERIL) SRI.C.Y.VINOD KUMAR** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE, DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & CW2: -----------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA** - **(REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHIRAYINKIL POLICE STATION -** **CR.NO.68/2005 OF CHIRAYINKIL POLICE STATION), REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2277 of 2016 ()** **2. NIHAS, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. HAMSA, KIZHAKKEVILA VEETTIL, COIR OFFICE JUNCTION, VETTOOR DESOM, VETTOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 312.** **3. SANTHOSHKUMAR,AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. RAVEENDRAN, PIRAKKARI VEETTIL,NEAR KADAKKAVOOR CHEKKALAVILAKOM JANAKI HOSPITAL, KADAKKAVOOR DESOM, KADAKKAVOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 306.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GITHESH.R R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.JELSON J.EDAMPADAM** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **bp** **Crl.MC.No. 2277 of 2016 () ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS -----------------------** |**ANNEXURE A1: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN**| |---| |**CR.NO.68/2005 OF CHIRAYINKIL POLICE STATION,**| |**PENDING IN CC NO.1891/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE**| |**JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT-I,**| |**ATTINGAL.**| |**ANNEXURE A2: AFFIDAVIT DTD.22.3.2016 SWORN BY THE 2ND**| |**RESPONDENT.**| |**ANNEXURE A3: AFFIDAVIT DTD.22.3.2016 SWORN BY THE 3RD**| |**RESPONDENT.**| |**RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS**<br>**:**<br>**NIL.**| |**//TRUE COPY//**| |**P.A. TO JUDGE**| ## **bp** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 2277 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 7[th] June, 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **ORDER** This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”). The petitioners herein are accused Nos. 1 to 4 in C.C.No.1891 of 2006 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of 1[st] Class - I, Attingal. 2. The aforesaid crime has been registered at the instance of the 2[nd] respondent herein for the offences punishable under Section 324, 323 and 427 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 3[rd] respondent is the injured. 3. The prosecution allegation is that on 21.2.2005, the petitioners herein obstructed the _de facto_ complainant, who was the driver of a stage carriage bus bearing registration No. KL-01-4775 and manhandled him as well as the 3[rd] respondent. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing Crl.M.C. No. 2277 of 2016 -2- for the petitioner that during the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the matter has been amicably resolved and that the parties are living in peace and harmony. On its basis, it is submitted that the continuance of criminal prosecution will only enure to waste of valuable judicial time. 5. Respondents 2 and 3 have entered appearance through counsel and referring to Annexures A2 and A3 affidavits , it is submitted that the matter has been amicably resolved and that the respondents did not intend or wish that the criminal proceedings as against the petitioners should continue any further. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that the State has no objection in acting on Annexures A2 and A3 affidavits as it would promote peace and harmony. It is also submitted that the petitioners are not persons with any criminal antecedents. 7. It is thus borne out from the submissions made at Crl.M.C. No. 2277 of 2016 -3- the bar that the parties have amicably settled their disputes with their free will and without any kind of pressure, influence or coercion. The compromise, it is felt, is voluntarily and genuine and can be acted upon. The law with regard to the settlement of criminal disputes on the strength of an amicable resolution of the disputes between the parties is no more res integra. ## 8. **In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC** **303),** Apex Court has laid down that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. This view was reiterated in **Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab. (2014) 6 SCC 466) and Yogendra Yadav and Others V State of Jharkhand and Another 2014 (9) SCC 653 .** 9. It was held that the inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such Crl.M.C. No. 2277 of 2016 -4- power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. It was held that certain categories of cases involving heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute as those offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. But those cases where the wrong is basically private or personnel in nature and those in which the parties have resolved their entire dispute could fittingly be quashed by this Court taking into account the compromise between the offender and victim. In such cases the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused and the _de facto_ complainant to great oppression and prejudice. 10. After having anxiously considered the submissions it is felt that it would be unfair and contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding. It would Crl.M.C. No. 2277 of 2016 -5- only tantamount to abuse of process of law to subject the parties to the ordeal of a protracted criminal proceeding despite the settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer. Settlement will augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony. In the result, this petition is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.1891 of 2006 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of 1[st] Class- I, Attingal shall stand quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE** kp/-8.6.16