Denny Thomas v. State of Kerala & Rincy Roy; Reji Thomas v. State of Kerala & Rincy Roy

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: The Honourable Mr. Justice Alexander Thomas
Judgment Date: 2019-08-27
Court Decision / Holding: The impugned FIR in Crime No.1355/2017 and the subsequent proceedings in CC No.295/2018 stand quashed; all further proceedings against the accused are disposed of; certified copies of the order to be supplied to the Investigating Officer and the trial court.
Final Disposition: Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Denny Thomas
Reji Thomas
Susan Reji

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Kodumon Police Station, Pathanamthitta, by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam-682031
Rincy Roy

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• T. K. Biju (Manjinikara)

Counsels for Respondents

• C. M. Kammappu, Public Prosecutor for R1
• Bindu N. Rajan

Case Synopsis & Summary

Two criminal miscellaneous petitions were heard by a single judge of the Kerala High Court seeking quashing of the final report and the cognizable calendar case CC 295/2018 arising from Crime No.1355/2017 at Kodumon Police Station. Accused Nos. 1-3, including Denny Thomas (accused No. 2 in the crime) and Reji Thomas and Susan Reji (accused Nos. 1 and 3), challenged the FIR and subsequent proceedings on grounds of settlement with the de facto complainant, Rincy Roy, through an affidavit (Annexure A5). The Court observed that the investigation had resulted in Annexure-A2 final report and CC 295/2018. The 2nd respondent expressed no objection to quashing, while the petition asserted that the dispute between the parties had been resolved, and continuing the prosecution would waste judicial time. Relying on Supreme Court precedents Gian Singh v State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Court held that the High Court can quash non‑compoundable offences in appropriate cases where the parties have settled the dispute and continued prosecution would not serve any purpose. Accordingly, the court quashed the FIR and all proceedings in CC 295/2018, with directions to the IO and trial court and disposed of the petitions.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 498A IPCSection 506(i) IPCSection 354A IPCSection 323 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Power of High Court to quash under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the interest of justice
Settlement between parties can justify quashing even for non‑compoundable offences
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012 (2012) 10 SCC 303
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr, 2014 (2014) 6 SCC 466

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that there is a real settlement between the parties; continuing the prosecution would waste judicial time; they invoked the Court’s power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash in the public interest, citing Gian Singh and Narinder Singh as authority that quashing can be warranted where disputes are resolved and continuation serves no purpose.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents acknowledge the settlement; the 2nd respondent filed an affidavit stating disputes are resolved and has no objection to quashing; no contrary prosecutorial interest was shown. The court was urged to consider the settled nature of the dispute and invoke the same principles to end the proceedings.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 160 = (2012) 10 SCC 303	Positive	Cited for the proposition that High Court can quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in appropriate cases upon settlement where continuation would not serve the ends of justice.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr	(2014) 6 SCC 466	Positive	Cited for the principle that settlements may justify quashing of proceedings in light of public interest where continuation would be futile.

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** **TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 5TH BHADRA, 1941** ## **Crl.MC.No.1959 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 295/2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ADOOR** **CRIME NO.1355/2017 OF Kodumon Police Station , Pathanamthitta** ## **PETITIONER:** **DENNY THOMAS AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS DANIEL,RENI BHAVAN, ANANDAPALLY P.O., KODUMON,ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.T.K.BIJU (MANJINIKARA)** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KODUMON POLICE STATION, [CRIME NO.1355/2017],KODUMON, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM- 682 031. 2 RINCY ROY AGED 23 YEARS, D/O.ROY THOMAS,KANACHAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, EZHAMKULAM, NEDUMON P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA- 691 556.** ## **R2 BY ADV. SMT.BINDU N.RAJAN** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R1,** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.08.2019,ALONG WITH CRL.M.C.6034/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Crl.MC.Nos.1959 OF 2018 & 6034 of 2019 2 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 5TH BHADRA, 1941** ## **Crl.MC.No.6034 OF 2019(D)** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 295/2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS , ADOOR** **CRIME NO.1355/2017 OF Kodumon Police Station , Pathanamthitta** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **1 REJI THOMAS, AGED 55 YEARS S/O.DANIEL, RENI BHAVAN, ANANDAPALLY P.O., KODUMON, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2 SUSAN REJI, AGED 47 YEARS W/O.REJI THOMAS, RENI BHAVAN, ANANDAPALLY P.O., KODUMON, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.T.K.BIJU (MANJINIKARA)** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KODUMON POLICE STATION, (CRIME NO.1355/2017), KODUMON, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM- 682031.** - **2 RINCY ROY, AGED 23 YEARS D/O.ROY THOMAS, KANACHAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, EZHAMKULAM, NEDUMON P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA- 691556.** ## **R2 BY ADV. BINDU N.RAJAN** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R1** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.08.2019, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.1959/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Crl.MC.Nos.1959 OF 2018 & 6034 of 2019 3 **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ----------------------------------------Crl.M.C. Nos.1959 of 2018 & 6034 of 2019 ----------------------------------------Dated this the 27[th] day of August, 2019** ## **O R D E R** The two petitioners in the Crl.M.C.No.6034/2019 are accused Nos. 1 and 3 among the three accused in Annexure-A1 Crime No.1355/2017 of Kodumon Police Station, Pathanamthitta whereas the sole petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.1959/2018 is accused No.2 in the instant Crime No.1355/2017 of Kodumon Police Station. The Police after investigation has filed the impugned Annexure-A2 final report/charge sheet in the abovesaid Crime No.1355/2017 of Kodumon Police Station, which has now led to the pendency of calendar case CC No.295/2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor for the offences punishable under Secs. 498A, 506(i), 354A and 323 of the IPC. According to the petitioners, Annexure-A1 crime has been initiated only as a counter blast to Annexure-A3 crime registered against the 2[nd] respondent on 25.08.2017. That the police has filed final report in Annexure-A3 crime and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences and numbered the case as CC No.296/2018 for the offences punishable under Secs.143, 147, 451, 427, 341, 323, 354 and 149 of the IPC etc. According to the petitioners, the instant Annexure-A1 Crime No.1355/2017 of Kodumon Police Station was registered as a counter blast to Annexure-A3. Now, all the issues between the petitioners in this Crl.M.C. who are the 3 accused in the impugned crime and the 2[nd] respondent Crl.MC.Nos.1959 OF 2018 & 6034 of 2019 4 who was the defacto complainant has been settled by mediation and intervention of well wishers and the 2[nd] respondent has now sworn to Annexure-A5 affidavit stating that the entire disputes between the parties have been resolved and the 2[nd] respondent does not wish to continue the impugned criminal proceedings and that the 2[nd] respondent has no objection in quashing the impugned criminal proceedings in the light of the abovesaid settlement. 2. 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 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. 3. Accordingly, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the impugned Anx.A1 FIR in Crime No.1355/2017 of Kodumon Police Station, Pathanamthitta Crl.MC.Nos.1959 OF 2018 & 6034 of 2019 5 district, which has led to the institution of Anx-A2 Final Report in C.C. No.295/2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor and all further proceedings arising therefrom pending against all the accused will stand quashed. The petitioners will produce certified copies of this order to the Investigating Officer concerned and the competent court below concerned. Office of Advocate General will forward copy of this order to the Investigating Officer concerned, for necessary information. With these observations and directions, the above Criminal Miscellaneous Cases stand finally disposed of. ## **Sd/-** **ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE** SKS Crl.MC.Nos.1959 OF 2018 & 6034 of 2019 6 ## **APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 1959/2018** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** |**ANNEXURE A1**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME**| |---|---| ||**NO.1355/2017 OF KODUMON POLICE STATION,**| ||**KODUMON DATED 01.09.2017.**| |**ANNEXURE A2**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME**| ||**NO.1355/2017 OF KODUMON POLICE STATION,**| ||**KODUMON DATED 30.11.2017.**| |**ANNEXURE A3**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME**| ||**NO.1320/2017 OF KODUMON POLICE STATION,**| ||**KODUMON DATED 25.08.2017.**| |**ANNEXURE A4**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME**| ||**NO.1320/2017 OF KODUMON POLICE STATION,**| ||**KODUMON DATED 25.10.2017.**| Crl.MC.Nos.1959 OF 2018 & 6034 of 2019 7 ## **APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 6034/2019** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** |**ANNEXURE A1**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME**| |---|---| ||**NO.1355/2017 OF KODUMON POLICE STATION,**| ||**KODUMON DATED 01.09.2017.**| |**ANNEXURE A2**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME**| ||**NO.1355/2017 OF KODUMON POLICE STATION,**| ||**KODUMON DATED 30.11.2017.**| |**ANNEXURE A3**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME**| ||**NO.1320/2017 OF KODUMON POLICE STATION,**| ||**KODUMON DATED 25.08.2017.**| |**ANNEXURE A4**|**A TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME**| ||**NO.1320/2017 OF KODUMON POLICE STATION,**| Crl.MC.Nos.1959 OF 2018 & 6034 of 2019 8 **KODUMON DATED 25.10.2017.** **ANNEXURE A5 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.**