High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-09-26PETITION ALLOWED; FIR AND PROCEEDINGS QUASHED.

Dhanya v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C. No. 6245 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
Judgment Date: 2016-09-26
Court Decision / Holding: This petition is allowed. Annexure I (FIR) and all proceedings in Crime No.1603/2016 of the Central Police Station, Ernakulam stand quashed.
Final Disposition: PETITION ALLOWED; FIR AND PROCEEDINGS QUASHED.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Dhanya

Respondents

Sony Joseph
Syamkumar U.S
Shiju C.P
State of Kerala represented by the S.I. of Police, Central Police Station, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• C. P. Udayabhanu

Counsels for Respondents

• P. U. Pratheesh Kumar
• Public Prosecutor, Amjad Ali

Case Synopsis & Summary

Dhanya, the sole petitioner-accused, approached the Kerala High Court seeking quashing of Crime No.1603/2016 registered at Ernakulam Central Police Station for offences punishable under sections 406 and 420 IPC. The petition, filed under Section 482 CrPC, contends that a settlement has been reached with the private respondents (Sony Joseph, Syamkumar U.S., Shiju C.P.) and that the victims have sworn affidavits absolving the petitioner. The respondents opposed quashing, arguing the gravity of the offences, yet the public prosecutor notes that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. The petitioner argues that, in view of the compromise, continuing the proceedings would be futile and would defeat the ends of justice, a proposition supported by decisions like Shiji @ Pappu and Others v. Radhika and Another, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another, and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab. After hearing, the court observes that the disputes are settled and the victims have absolved the petitioner, and relies on the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to render substantial justice, as elaborated in Gian Singh, to quash the proceedings where conviction is unlikely. Consequently, the FIR and all proceedings are quashed and the petition is allowed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the CrPCSection 406 IPCSection 420 IPCSection 320 CrPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

res integra
ex debito justitiae
ends of justice

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner submits that a compromise has been arrived at between the petitioner and the private respondents, supported by separate affidavits sworn by the victims, who absolve the petitioner. It is urged that (i) the disputes have been settled; (ii) the victims do not wish the criminal proceedings to continue; (iii) the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC empower this Court to quash to prevent abuse of process and to secure ends of justice; (iv) the decisions in Shiji @ Pappu, Gian Singh and Narinder Singh support quashing where settlement exists and conviction is unlikely; and (v) the offence is not of such gravity to override ends of justice. The argument rests on the principle that ex debito justitiae, the Court may render substantial justice by terminating futile proceedings.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents’ counsel emphasizes the gravity of the offences and submits that while the petitioner has no prior antecedents, the State contends that a quashing order may undermine the seriousness of the offence. The Public Prosecutor notes that the victims have sworn affidavits and that the case requires careful consideration of whether quashing would be appropriate given the alleged deceit and money transactions; however, the formal position remains that the court should not lightly dismiss offences of this nature unless ends of justice are demonstrably served by settlement.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Shiji @ Pappu and Others v. Radhika and Another	2011(10) SCC 705	Positive	Cited to support invocation of inherent powers under 482 CrPC to quash proceedings in the presence of a settlement and to secure ends of justice.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another	2012(10) SCC 303	Positive	Cited as the seminal authority that allows quashing a criminal proceeding under 482 CrPC when settlement exists and conviction is unlikely, ensuring ends of justice.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	2014(6) SCC 466	Positive	Cited for the principle that settlement can justify quashing to prevent futility and advance ends of justice in appropriate cases.

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 Dhanya 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** **MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/4TH ASWINA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 6245 of 2016 ()** ## **---------------------------** ## **CRIME NO. 1603/2016 OF ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:** **---------------------** **DHANYA AGED 28, D/O. KRISHNA BABU, KOTHARI HOUSE, NEAR AKG LIBRARY, KARIVALLOOR, KANNOOR** **BY ADV. SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU** **RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------** ## **1. SONY JOSEPH** **AGED 38, S/O. T.J. JOSEPH, PUTHENPARAMBIL (H), CHANNIKKADU, KOTTAYAM** ## **2. SYAMKUMAR.U.S** **AGED 32, S/O. SARAVANAN, ULIATHARA (H), AROOR.** ## **3. SHIJU.C.P** **AGED 39, S/O. PAULOSE, CHIRAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, KARUKUTTY, ANGAMALY.** **4. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE S.I. OF POLICE CENTRAL POLICE STATION,** **CONTD...** **:2:** **Crl.MC.No. 6245 of 2016 ()** ## **---------------------------** **(CRIME NO.1603/2016) REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **R1-3 BY ADV. SRI.P.U.PRATHEESH KUMAR** **R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.AMJAD ALI** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **CONTD...** **:3:** **Crl.MC.No. 6245 of 2016 () ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-----------------------** **ANNEXURE I: A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1603/2016 ON THE FILE OF CJM COURT, ERNAKULAM** **ANNEXURE I(A): A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY R1 TO R4** **ANNEXURE II: A PHOTOCOPY OF THE REMAND REPORT FILED BY R4** **ANNEXURE III TO V : AFFIDAVITS SWORN BY R1 TO R3 WHO ARE THE VICTIMS AS REFLECTED BY ANNEXURE -II** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL** **-----------------------** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** ## **SKS** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 6245 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## Dated 26[th] September, 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **ORDER** - 1.Instant petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. - 2.On the basis of information furnished by the 1[st] respondent herein, Crime No. 1603 of 2016 of Central Police Station, Ernakulam was registered against the petitioner herein for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. - 3.Succinctly stated, the case of the prosecution allegation is that the petitioner herein with deceitful intent, induced the respondents 1 to 3 to part with money by impressing upon them that they would be provided with jobs in various hospitals. On the failure to abide with the terms of the promise, the aforesaid crime was registered. - 4.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, respondents 1 to 3 as well as the learned 2 Crl.M.C. No. 6245 of 2016 Public Prosecutor. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents that separate affidavits have been sworn to by the victims completely absolving the petitioner. - 6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in view of the compromise arrived at between the petitioner and the private respondents, the inherent power can be exercised by this Court and the entire proceedings are liable to be quashed. Reference is made to the judgment of the Apex Court in **Shiji @ Pappu and Others v. Radhika and Another** [2011(10) SCC 705], **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another** [2012(10) SCC 303] and **Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab** [2014 (6) SCC 466] to contend that this Court will be justified in exercising inherent powers in a case of this nature to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. Crl.M.C. No. 6245 of 2016 3 - 7.Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that the nature and gravity of offence are such that this Court will not be justified in exercising its discretionary powers. However, it is submitted that the petitioner is not a person with criminal antecedents. - 8.I have considered the rival submissions and have taken note of the fact that the disputes have been compromised and the victims have completely absolved the petitioner. The affidavits sworn to by the party respondents make it abundantly clear that they do not wish that the criminal proceedings against the petitioner should continue. 9. The legal position is no longer _res integra_ that the inhereint powers of this Court enshrined under Section 482 of the Code is distinct from the power of a criminal court to compound the offence under Section 320 of the Code. The powers can be exercised _ex debito justitiae_ to render real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. However, the plenitude of Crl.M.C. No. 6245 of 2016 4 the power under Section 482 of the Code by itself makes it obligatory for this Court to exercise the same with utmost care and caution. As held in the precedents cited above, securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor, the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victims has been settled can be taken note of by this Court and proceedings can be quashed if it ultimately be only an exercise in futility and if justice demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored. As held in **Gian Singh** (supra) this Court within the framework of its inherent power can quash the criminal proceeding if it is satisfied on the face of such settlement that there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be the casuality and ends of justice shall be defeated. Having regard to the above, this Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings exercising powers under Section 482 of the Crl.M.C. No. 6245 of 2016 5 Code. In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-I, FIR in Crime No. 1603 of 2016 of the Central Police Station, Ernakulam and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner will stand quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE** SKS //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE