High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2014-07-01Disposed of

Dhanapalan, Murugan and Syam Kumar v. State of Kerala and Anila

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No. 3488 of 2014

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Ramakrishnan
Judgment Date: 2014-07-01
Court Decision / Holding: The application is allowed. Annexure-II FIR dated 4.5.2012 in Crime No. 459/2012 is quashed and all proceedings against the petitioners are quashed. The classic vehicle involved (KL-27A/4000, Honda Civic) is to be released to the 3rd petitioner or his agent under Section 452 CrPC without any condition, in view of the complete settlement between the parties. The Director/Officer-in-charge of the JFMC Ambalapuzha and the concerned police station are to be informed of this order for necessary action. The criminal miscellaneous case is disposed of.
Final Disposition: Disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Dhanapalan
Murugan
Syam Kumar

Respondents

State of Kerala, represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Anila, NADUVATHARA HOUSE, OTHARA KIZHAKUMURI, ERAVIPEROOR VILLAGE, THIRUVALLAM TALUK-689 101

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. R.T. Pradeep

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. S. Hyma, Public Prosecutor
• Sri. S. Nidheesh

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.MC No. 3488 of 2014) arising from Crime No. 459/2012 registered at Ambalapuzha police station. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 — Dhanapalan, Murugan and Syam Kumar — are relatives of the first petitioner and faced allegations under sections 468, 471, 420 and 34 IPC, triggered after a private complaint by the second respondent and subsequently forwarded to police under Section 156(3) CrPC. The parties were engaged in protracted family disputes and, through mediation, agreed to withdraw all prosecutions and settle the issues, including a vehicle dispute involving a Honda Civic (KL-27A/4000). Since some offences are non-compoundable, there was initial hesitation to drop proceedings at the crime stage. The petition sought to quash Annexure-II FIR dated 4.5.2012 and all proceedings under Sec. 482 CrPC on the basis that the settlement forecloses any realistic prospect of conviction and would promote harmony between the families. The second respondent supported the settlement and even stated willingness to hand over the vehicle to the third petitioner. The State Prosecutor opposed, citing gravity of forgery-related offences. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, the court held that where family disputes are settled through mediation, it may invoke Sec. 482 CrPC to quash to promote settlement. It directed release of the vehicle under Sec. 452 CrPC and quashed the proceedings, disposing of the case to preserve harmony between the families.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 CrPCSections 468, 471, 420, and 34 IPCSection 156(3) CrPCSection 452 CrPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Gian Singh v. State of Punjab – Court should quash under Sec. 482 CrPC to promote settlement in family disputes.
Settlement of family disputes should be honoured by the court; quashing to promote harmony (Gian Singh doctrine).

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submits that the mediation has fully resolved the disputes between the parties and there is no likelihood of conviction; the entire prosecution should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC to promote settlement and finality in family matters. They rely on Gian Singh to contend that courts may acknowledge settlements reached during mediation and quash proceedings to foster harmony, even where non-compoundable offences are involved; the vehicle dispute has already been settled with the second respondent relinquishing ownership to the third petitioner, with a request for release of the vehicle under Section 452 CrPC.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents oppose quashing, arguing that the alleged offences include serious matters such as forgery and other non-compoundable offences; permitting quashing at the crime stage could undermine the investigation and accountability. While mediation led to a settlement, the State Prosecutor contends that the court must balance the public interest and integrity of the criminal process, ensuring that serious allegations are not set aside solely on the basis of settlement. The decision in Gian Singh is to be applied with caution in such contexts; however, since there remains a legitimate public interest in investigation, the case should not be quashed merely on the basis of private settlement.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012(4) KLT 108 (SC)	Positive	Cited to justify quashing under 482 CrPC to promote settlement in family disputes when mediation yields harmony.

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 Dhanapalan, Murugan and Syam Kumar v. State of Kerala and Anila 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 K.RAMAKRISHNAN** **TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2014/10TH ASHADHA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3488 of 2014 ()** ## **--------------------------CRIME NO. 459/2012 OF AMBALAPPUZHA POLICE STATION ,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT --------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED A1 TO A3:** **----------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. DHANAPALAN, AGED 68 YEARS,** - **NADUVILEKATTU VEEDU, THOTTAPPALLY MURI, PURAKKAD VILLAGE, AMBALAPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA.** ## **2. MURUGAN,** - **NADUVILEKATTU VEEDU, THOTTAPPALLY MURI, PURAKKAD VILLAGE, AMBALAPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA.** **3. SYAM KUMAR, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. DHANAPALAN, NADUVILEKATTU VEEDU, THOTTAPPALLY MURI, PURAKKAD VILLAGE,** **AMBALAPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** **--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **2. ANILA, NADUVATHARA HOUSE, OTHARA KIZHAKUMURI, ERAVIPEROOR VILLAGE, THIRUVALLAM TALUK-689 101** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S.HYMA R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.NIDHEESH** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-07-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** **Crl.MC.No. 3488 of 2014 () --------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:** **----------------------------------------------** **ANNEX.I. TRUE COPY OF THE CMP NO. 2378/2012 DATED 27-3-2012 BEFORE JFMC, AMABALAPUZHA. ANNEX.II. TRUE COPY OF FIR DATED 4-5-2012 IN CRIME NO. 459/2012 OF AMBALAPUZHA POLICE STATION. ANNEX.III. TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DATED 7-5-2014 BEFORE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL** ## **/TRUE COPY/** ## **P.A.TO.JUDGE** **sts** ## K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J. -----------------------------------------------------------------Criminal M.C. No.3488 of 2014 --------------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 1[st] day of July, 2014 ## O R D E R This criminal miscellaneous case is filed by petitioners, who are accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No.459/2012 of Ambalapuzha police station, to quash the proceedings on the basis of settlement under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. It is alleged in the petition that, the petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No.459/2012 of Ambalapuzha police station. A crime was registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the 2[nd] respondent, alleging commission of the offence under Section 468, 471, 420 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, against the petitioners before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ambalapuzha, which was forwarded to the police for investigation by the learned magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and on receipt of the same, the above crime was registered. The petitioners are non other than the father-in-law, husband and elder son of the brother of first petitioner. There were other disputes also Crl.M.C.No. 3488 / 2014 2 between them and all these matters were refereed for mediation and in the mediation, they have decided to withdraw all the prosecution and settled the issues between them. Since it is in the crime stage and some of the offences are non-compoundable in nature, neither the court nor the police will drop the proceedings at this stage. So they could not file an application for compounding before them. In view of the settlement, there is no possibility of conviction as well. So the petitioners have no other remedy, except to approach this court, seeking the following relief: This Hon'ble court may be pleased to quash Annexure-II FIR dated 4.5.2012 in Crime No.459/2012 of Ambalapuzha police station and all proceedings pursuant to thereon. 3. The 2[nd] respondent appeared through counsel and submitted that, the entire matter has been settled between the parties and she does not want to prosecute the case and she agreed to hand over the vehicle involved in the case to the 3[rd] petitioner, who is her husband without any condition. She had filed an affidavit stating these facts as well. So she does not want to proceed with the prosecution. 4. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that, in view of the settlement, there is no possibility of conviction and Crl.M.C.No. 3488 / 2014 3 so he prayed for allowing the application. 5. The application was opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that, grave offences like forgery etc., have been incorporated and it is not a matter for quashing on the basis of settlement invoking the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at this stage. 6. It is an admitted fact that the 2[nd] respondent married the 3[rd] petitioner, who is the son of first petitioner and cousin of 2[nd] petitioner. After some time of marriage, there were disputes arose between them in respect of their relationship and several petitions have been filed before the Family Court and also certain crimes have been registered in respect of the vehicle and also alleging cruelty as well. The matter has been refereed for mediation and in the mediation, entire dispute between the parties have been settled and they have decided to withdraw all the prosecutions. In view of the settlement, there is no possibility of conviction and they are not likely to co-operate with the investigation as well, so as to enable the investigating officer to file a final report and even if final report filed, possibility of conviction in such cases will be remote. Though there was an allegation of forgery, since the petitioner has Crl.M.C.No. 3488 / 2014 4 decided to relinguish her ownership in respect of the vehicle in favour of the 3[rd] petitioner in the mediation, then that cannot be a ground for denying / quashing of the proceedings, especially when it is a family dispute and the entire family disputes have been settled in the mediation. 7. Further in the decision reported in **Gian Singh** ## **v. State of Punjab [2012(4) KLT 108 (SC)],** it has been held that: “In the case of family disputes arising between the spouses or family members and the dispute is settled between the parties on account of the intervention of mediators and they wanted to have harmony, then court must honour such settlement and even if non-compoundable offence have been alleged, court must invoke the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings to promote settlement in family disputes”. 8. In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision and also considering the fact that matrimonial dispute has resulted in registration of several crimes including this crime and the entire dispute has been settled Crl.M.C.No. 3488 / 2014 5 in the mediation and there is no possibility of conviction in such cases, this court feels that, it is fit case where the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be invoked to quash the proceedings in order to promote settlement, which resulted in harmony between the two families. 9. As regards the vehicle involved in this case namely KL-27A/4000, Honda Civic car, is concerned, since the defacto-complainant had relinguished her right in respect of the vehicle and decided to hand over the same to the 3[rd] petitioner, the court below is directed to release the vehicle to the 3[rd] petitioner or his agent on filing an application for release of the vehicle under Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without any condition, as the entire matter has been settled between them. So the application is allowed and further proceedings in Crime No.459/2012 of Ambalapuzha police station, as against the petitioners are quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the Judicial First Crl.M.C.No. 3488 / 2014 6 Class Magistrate Court, Ambalapuzha, informing the same to the concerned police station, for necessary further action. With the above direction and observation, this criminal miscellaneous case is disposed of. Hand over the copy of the order to the counsel for the petitioner so as to enable him to produce the same before the court for necessary further action. Sd/- K. Ramakrishnan, Judge **==> picture [84 x 13] intentionally omitted <==** P.A. to Judge ss