High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-04-09Crl.M.C allowed; Annexure M Final Report and al...

Fr. John Moolamattom and others v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:CRL.M.C NO. 7684 OF 2017

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Babu, J.
Judgment Date: 2024-04-09
Court Decision / Holding: Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure M Final Report in Crime No. 303/2014 and all further proceedings pursuant to it in S.T. No. 625/2017 of Gramanyalay, Vadavukode, Kolenchery stand quashed.
Final Disposition: Crl.M.C allowed; Annexure M Final Report and all further proceedings quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Fr. John Moolamattom
K.A Thampi
Biju Poulouse
A.P Babu
A.S Alexander
Biju V Yohannan
Bijo Paul
Saniyo Johny
A.S Abraham
Benny Poulose
K.M Yacob
Jose Joseph

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
P.M Joy S/O Mani, aged 55 years, Padinjarekudil House, Kokkapilly Kara, Thiruvaniyoor Village

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE
• SRI.R.GITHESH
• SRI.M.A.MOHAMMED SIRAJ
• SRI.MANJUNATH MENON
• SRI.P.PRIJITH
• SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA

Counsels for Respondents

• SRI.MATHEW KURIAKOSE
• PRATHEESH MOHAN
• SRI.G SUDHEER

Case Synopsis & Summary

The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam hears CRL.M.C. No. 7684 of 2017, challenging the order in CMP No. 1074 of 2014 of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kolencherry, arising from ST No. 625/2017 before Gram Nyayalayam Vadavukode, Kolenchery. The petition is brought by twelve accused persons (Fr. John Moolamattom; K.A Thampi; Biju Poulouse; A.P Babu; A.S Alexander; Biju V Yohannan; Bijo Paul; Saniyo Johny; A.S Abraham; Benny Poulose; K.M Yacob; Jose Joseph) seeking to quash the final report (Annexure M) and all further proceedings in the connected case. The State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor, and P.M Joy, contest the matter, but the learned Public Prosecutor states that the dispute was settled amicably and that the parties, including the victim, have agreed to a settlement, which is voluntary and fair and does not affect public interest. Reliance is placed on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Narinder Singh and others v. State, and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, wherein the Supreme Court held that, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., quashing is permissible when parties settle and ends of justice demand it, even in non‑compoundable offences. The court finds the dispute is purely personal, with no public interest at stake, and the offences are not serious. It concludes that continuing proceedings would serve no purpose and accordingly allows the Cr.M.C., quashing the final report and all further proceedings. The matter is disposed of by a single judge of the Kerala High Court.

Provisions of Law Cited

IPC Sec. 143IPC Sec. 147IPC Sec. 427 r/w Sec. 323Cr.P.C. Sec. 320Cr.P.C. Sec. 482

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ends of justice (doctrine)
Compounding of offences under Sec. 320 Cr.P.C. in exceptional circumstances (as recognized in Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, Laxmi Narayan)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants submit that the dispute is purely personal and has been amicably settled between the parties. The injured party has agreed not to pursue the case, and the settlement is voluntary and fair, reflecting the free will of the parties. Proceeding would amount to harassment and would not serve any legitimate public interest since the offences are not serious. The applicants rely on the High Court’s power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in light of a valid settlement, supported by the Supreme Court authorities Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, and Laxmi Narayan, to ensure ends of justice and prevent abuse of process. They contend the settlement satisfies the conscience of the Court and the victim’s consent is genuine.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents, represented by the Public Prosecutor, contend that the matter, though settled, involves offences under IPC and requires scrutiny under the ends-of-justice principle. The settlement is examined to ensure it is voluntary and not the product of coercion. The Public Prosecutor, having perused the affidavit and investigations, submits that the dispute is settled amicably and that quashing the proceedings would advance the ends of justice. They rely on Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, and Laxmi Narayan to justify quashing, provided the settlement is truthful and no public interest is harmed.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)	Positive	Cited to justify quashing of proceedings under 482 Cr.P.C. where settlement exists and ends of justice demand it, even for non‑compoundable offences.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and Others	[(2014) 6 SCC 466]	Positive	Supports use of 482 Cr.P.C. to quash when amicable settlement exists, aligning with ends of justice.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others	[(2019) 5 SCC 688]	Positive	Reinforces principle that settlement can justify quashing under 482 Cr.P.C. where ends of justice require.

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 Fr. John Moolamattom 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 K. BABU`** ``` TUESDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1946 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 7684 OF 2017 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CMP NO.1074 OF 2014 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KOLENCHERRY ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN ST NO.625 OF 2017 OF GRAMA NYAYALAYA, VADAVUCODE AT KOLENCHERY PETITIONER/S: ``` - **`1 FR. JOHN MOOLAMATTOM AGED 51 YEARS`** - **`AGED 51 YEARS, MOOLAMATTOTHIL HOUSE, NECHUR POST,MANEED VILLAGE.`** - **`2 K.A THAMPI AGED 61 YEARS, KUPPAYIL VEEDU, THIRUVANIYOOR POST,THIRUVANIYOOR VILLAGE.`** - **`3 BIJU POULOSE AGED 43 YEARS, MADALIL HOUSE, KOKKAPILLY POST,THIRUVANIYOOR VILLAGE.`** - **`4 A.P BABU AGED 61 YEARS, ADUKKATTIL HOUSE, KUZHIYARAKARA,CHOTTANIKKARA.`** - **`5 A.S ALEXANDER AGED 51 YEARS, ARAIKKAL HOUSE, KUZHIYARAKARA,CHOTTANIKKARA.`** - **`6 BIJU V YOHANNAN AGED 40 YEARS, VEMBILLIMATTOM HOUSE,KOKKAPPILLIKARA, THIRUVANIYOOR VILLAGE.`** - **`7 BIJO PAUL AGED 38 YEARS, EDAPPILLIMATTATHIL HOUSE,KUZHIYARAKARA, CHOTTANIKKARA.`** - **`8 SANIYO JOHNY AGED 25 YEARS, OMELIL HOUSE, MATTAKUZHIKARA,PUTHENCRUZ.`** Crl.M.C.No.7684 of 2017 .2.. - **`9 A.S ABRAHAM AGED 56 YEARS, OMELIL HOUSE, MATTAKUZHIKARA,PUTHENCRUZ.`** - **`10 BENNY POULOSE AGED 51 YEARS, EDAPPILLIMATTATHIL HOUSE,THIRUVANIYOOR.`** - **`11 K.M YACOB AGED 57 YEARS, KOLLINAL HOUSE, KOKKAPPILLIKARA,THIRUVANIYOOR VILLAGE.`** - **`12 JOSE JOSEPH AGED 48 YEARS, VEMBILLIMATTATIL HOUSE,KOKKAPPILLIKARA, THIRUVANIYOOR VILLAGE.`** - **`BY ADVS. SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.R.GITHESH SRI.M.A.MOHAMMED SIRAJ SRI.MANJUNATH MENON SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA`** ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.`** - **`2 P.M JOY S/O MANI, AGED 55 YEARS, PADINJARAKUDIL HOUSE,KOKKAPILLY KARA, THIRUVANIYOOR VILLAGE. BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEW KURIAKOSE PRATHEESH MOHAN R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI G SUDHEER`** ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ``` ``` ADMISSION ON 09.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` Crl.M.C.No.7684 of 2017 **==> picture [17 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** ## **K.BABU, J.** -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.7684 of 2017 --------------------------------------Dated this the 9[th] day of April, 2024 ## **O R D E R** The prayer in this Crl.M.C. is to quash Annexure M Final Report in Crime No. 303/2014 and all further proceedings pursuant to it in S.T.No.625/2017 of Gramanyalay, Vadavukode, Kolenchery on the ground that the parties have arrived at a settlement in respect of the subject matter. 2. The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 12. 3. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 143, 147 and 427 r/w 323 of IPC. 4. Respondent No.2 entered appearance through counsel. The affidavit sworn to by him has also been placed before this Court. Crl.M.C.No.7684 of 2017 **==> picture [17 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** ## 5. Heard both sides. 6. I have perused the averments in the petition and the affidavit sworn to by respondent No 2. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the matter was enquired into through the Investigating Officer, who has taken the statement of the victim, and it is reported that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled. The material placed before the Court shows that the entire dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the defacto complainant has decided not to proceed further. The settlement between the parties is found to be voluntary and fair. The settlement or the compromise satisfies the conscience of the Court. It is seen that the victim agreed to settle the matter with their free will. 8. In **Gian Singh** v. **State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)]** , **Narinder Singh and others v. State** Crl.M.C.No.7684 of 2017 **==> picture [17 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** **of Punjab and Others [(2014) 6 SCC 466]** and **State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others [(2019) 5 SCC 688]** the Apex Court held that the High Court, invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C., can quash criminal proceedings in relation to non-compoundable offences, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of Cr.P.C., if it is warranted in the given facts and circumstances of the case, to ensure ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. 9. In the instant case, the dispute is purely personal in nature. There is nothing to show that public interest will be compromised by quashing the proceedings. The offences in question do not fall within the category of serious offences or heinous offences. 10. The offences in the present case do not fall within the category of offences prohibited for granting Crl.M.C.No.7684 of 2017 **==> picture [17 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** permission to compromise in terms of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in **Gian Singh** (supra), **Narinder Singh** (supra) and **Laxmi Narayan** (supra). 11. This Court is of the view that no purpose will be served in proceeding with the matter further. Resultantly, the Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure M Final Report in Crime No. 303/2014 and all further proceedings pursuant to it in S.T.No.625/2017 of Gramanyalay, Vadavukode, Kolenchery stand hereby quashed. Sd/- **K.BABU JUDGE** kkj Crl.M.C.No.7684 of 2017 .7.. ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7684/2017`** |**`PETITIONER`**|**`ANNEXURES`**|| |---|---|---| |**`ANNEXURE A`**|**`CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT AS`**|| ||**`C.M.P NO.143/2017 FILED BY THE 2ND`**|| ||**`RESPONDENT BEFORE THE GRAMANYAYALAYA,`**|| ||**`VADAVUKODE, KOLENCHERY.`**|| |**`ANNEXURE B`**|**`TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN `**|**`O.S`**| ||**`NO.35/2000 OF 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT`**|| ||**`COURT, ERNAKULAM DTD.20.12.2012.`**|| |**`ANNEXURE C`**|**`TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN `**|**`WP(C)`**| ||**`NO.3497/2005 OF THIS HON'BLE `**|**`COURT`**| ||**`DATED`**|| |**`ANNEXURE D`**|**`TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN S.L.P `**|**`(C)`**| ||**`NO.23419/2005 DTD. 16.2.2001 OF`**|**`THIS`**| ||**`HON'BLE COURT.`**|| |**`ANNEXURE E`**|**`TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN C.M.A NO.3 OF`**|| ||**`2001 DATED 16.2.2001 OF THIS HON'BLE`**|| ||**`COURT.`**|| |**`ANNEXURE F`**|**`TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 18.11.2002 IN`**|| ||**`C.C.C NO.868/2002 OF THIS HON'BLE`**|| ||**`COURT.`**|| |**`ANNEXURE G`**|**`TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN `**|**`CIVIL`**| ||**`APPEALNO.8478/2012 DATED 18.7.2017 OF`**|| ||**`THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT.`**|| |**`ANNEXURE H`**|**`TRUE`** **`OF`** **`COMPLAINT`** **`AS`**|**`C.M.P`**| ||**`NO.1074/2014 FILED BY THE `**|**`2ND`**| ||**`RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL`**|**`FIRST`**| ||**`CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLENCHERY.`**|| |**`ANNEXURE I`**|**`TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN `**|**`C.C`**| ||**`NO.1892/2014 OF JUDICIAL FIRST`**|**`CLASS`**| ||**`MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLENCHERY.`**|| |**`ANNEXURE J`**|**`TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT AS `**|**`C.M.P`**| ||**`NO.672/2014 `** **`FILED `** **`BY `** **`THE `**|**`2ND`**| ||**`RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL`**|**`FIRST`**| ||**`CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLENCHERY.`**|| |**`ANNEXURE K`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN`**|**`F.I.R`**| Crl.M.C.No.7684 of 2017 .8.. ``` NO.1344/2014 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLENCHERY. ``` ``` ANNEXURE LTRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT AS C.M.P NO.523 OF 2014 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLENCHERY. ANNEXURE MTRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN F.I.R NO.303 OF 2014 DATED 7.3.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE POLICE BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLENCHERRY. ```