Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed

George, Antony (alias Binu), Gelroney, Shaji (alias Raphal) and Joseph v. State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, and Antony V.D.

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C. No. 5261 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date
2016-09-29
Court Decision / Holding
Annexure-A1 final report in Crime No.1097/2011 of the Palarivattom Police Station and the proceedings pending as CC 1036/2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-IX are quashed.
Final Disposition
Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • GEORGE
  • ANTONY @ BINU
  • GELRONEY
  • SHAJI @ RAPHAL
  • JOSEPH

Respondents

  • STATE OF KERALA represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
  • ANTONY V.D.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • SMT.TESSY JOSE

Counsels for Respondents

  • • SRI.C.ANILKUMAR (KALLESSERIL)
  • • SRI.P.S.PRASOBH
  • • SMT.LAKSHMI B.SHENOY
  • • PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.AMJAD ALI

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC filed in the Kerala High Court for quashing CC 1036/2015 before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class IX, Ernakulam, arising from Crime No. 1097/2011 of Palarivattom Police Station. The petitioners—George, Antony alias Binu, Gelroney, Shaji alias Raphal, and Joseph—are related to the second respondent, who has filed Annexure-A2 affidavit stating no subsisting grievance and expressing a desire to settle. The prosecution alleges that on 11 June 2011, the petitioners formed an unlawful assembly and, in furtherance of a common object, assaulted the second respondent with an iron rod and stamped him, causing injuries. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about invoking 482, but the petitioners contend that a settlement between the parties removes the impediment to quashing, especially since the offences are not grave and the possibility of conviction is remote. The Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab crystallised the scope of 482, allowing quashing based on private settlements in cases with private or civil flavour, while excluding crimes against society. Respecting these guidelines, and noting the settled matter and lack of public interest in continuing the proceedings, the High Court quashes the final report and the CC proceedings.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the CrPCSections 141, 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 506(ii) read with Section 149 IPCSection 320 CrPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC can be based on settlements between private parties and in matters with private or civil flavour, not crimes against society (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab).
  • Guidelines in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 regarding the use of 482 CrPC in settlement scenarios.
  • Rajesh Kamath J. and Others v. Mohana Kurup and Others (AIR 2016 SC 2452) providing further guidance on quashing in settled matters.
  • Offences having a private or civil flavour may be quashed under 482 CrPC when the parties have resolved their entire dispute; crimes against society should generally not be quashed.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that a settlement has been arrived at between the parties, and the second respondent has filed Annexure-A2 affidavit stating no subsisting grievance and desire to settle. They urge that, in light of settled dispute and lack of grave offence, the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings to prevent oppression and harassment. They rely on Gian Singh to show that 482 powers extend to cases with private settlements and civil flavour, and on Narinder Singh and Rajesh Kamath guidelines for supportive usage, while emphasising that continuation would not serve the public interest given the remote likelihood of conviction.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor expresses cautious skepticism about using 482 to quash in circumstances involving private settlement, arguing that the power is not meant to collapse due process in cases of offences against society. Counsel for the State and the second respondent contend that the offences, though not extremely grave, involve violence and public interest. They stress the need for a fair trial if the matter affects public order, and caution against prematurely ending proceedings merely due to a private settlement.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another2012 (10) SCC 303PositiveHeld that 482 CrPC power extends to quashing based on settlements between private parties and matters with civil flavour, with limits excluding crimes against society.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab2014 (6) SCC 466PositiveGuidelines issued regarding exercise of 482 CrPC in cases with private settlements.
Rajesh Kamath J. and Others v. Mohana Kurup and OthersAIR 2016 SC 2452PositiveRecent Supreme Court guidelines related to quashing in settled matters.

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 George, Antony (alias Binu), Gelroney, Shaji (alias Raphal) and Joseph v. State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, and Antony V.D. 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** **THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/7TH ASWINA, 1938 Crl.MC.No. 5261 of 2016 ()** ## **---------------------------** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 1036/2015 of J.M.F.C. - IX, ERNAKULAM (TEMPORARY) DATED CRIME NO. 1097/2011 OF PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM** **PETITIONER(S):** **-------------** ## **1. GEORGE** **AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, RESIDING AT VETTAKKAL HOUSE, ADIMURI, STADIUM LINK ROAD, POONITHURA VILLAGE, PALARIVATTOM P.O, KOCHI 25.** **2. ANTONY @ BINU AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, RESIDING AT VETTAKKAL HOUSE, ADIMURI, STADIUM LINK ROAD, POONITHURA VILLAGE, PALARIVATTOM P.O, KOCHI 25.** **3. GELRONEY AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, VETTAKKAL HOUSE, ADIMURI, STADIUM LINK ROAD, POONITHURA VILLAGE, PALARIVATTOM P.O, KOCHI 25.** ## **4. SHAJI @ RAPHAL** **AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.VAVACHAN, RESIDING AT THOTTASSERY HOUSE, ADIMURI, STADIUM LINK ROAD, POONITHURA VILLAGE, PALARIVATTOM P.O, KOCHI 25.** **CONTD...** **:2:** **Crl.MC.No. 5261 of 2016 () ---------------------------** ## **5. JOSEPH** **AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.VAVACHAN, RESIDING AT THOTTASSERY HOUSE, THUTHIYOOR, KAKKANAD, VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE.** **BY ADV. SMT.TESSY JOSE** **RESPONDENT(S):** ## **--------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.31** ## **2. ANTONY V.D** **AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.DEVASSY, RESIDING AT VETTAKKAL HOUSE, ADIMURI, STADIUM LINK ROAD, POONITHURA VILLAGE, PALARIVATTOM P.O, KOCHI 25.** **R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.ANILKUMAR (KALLESSERIL) R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.S.PRASOBH R2 BY ADV. SMT.LAKSHMI B.SHENOY R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.AMJAD ALI** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **CONTD...** ## **:3:** **Crl.MC.No. 5261 of 2016 () ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-----------------------** **ANNEXURE A1. COPY OF THE FIR AND FINAL REPORT DATED 10.7.11 IN CRIME 1097/11 OF PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE A2. AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 1.8.16.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL** **-----------------------** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **SKS** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## Crl.M.C. No. 5261 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## Dated 29[th] September, 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **ORDER** - 1.This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Code') has been preferred by the petitioners herein for quashing the proceedings pending against them as C.C.No.1036 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-IX, Ernakulam. In the said case, they stand indicted for offences punishable under Sections 141, 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 506(ii) read with Section 149 of the IPC. - 2.The prosecution allegation against the petitioners, who are the accused Nos. 1 to 5, in the said case is that on 11.6.2011 at 9.45 p.m., the petitioners formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common object, the accused Nos. 4 and 5 are alleged to have assaulted the 2[nd] respondent with an iron Crl.M.C. No. 5261 of 2016 2 rod causing injuries on various parts of his body. The other accused are alleged to have stamped the 2[nd] respondent on his body causing injury and pain. - 3.The petitioners 1 to 3 are the direct cousins of the 2[nd] respondent. The 2[nd] respondent has entered appearance through his counsel and has filed Annexure-A2 affidavit wherein he has stated that the petitioners are his near relatives and that he has no subsisting grievance against them. He asserts in the affidavit that he does not wish that the criminal proceedings against the petitioners should continue. - 4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, this Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings. - 5.The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions has expressed his reservations in the matter of quashing the proceedings on the basis of settlement. It is Crl.M.C. No. 5261 of 2016 3 submitted that the invocation of powers under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is not warranted. However, it is submitted that no other cases are reported against the petitioners. 6.In **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another** [2012 (10)SCC 303], the Apex Court has crystalised the position in respect of the powers vested in the High Court under S.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to quash criminal proceedings. It was held that the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is not limited to quashing proceedings within the ambit and scope of Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The three - Judge Bench in the above case, clearly expounded, that quashing of criminal proceedings under S.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, could also be based on settlements between private parties, and could also on a compromise between the offender and the victim. Only that, the above power did not extend to Crl.M.C. No. 5261 of 2016 4 crimes against the society. It is also relevant to mention, that the jurisdiction vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for quashing criminal proceedings, was held to be exercisable in criminal cases having an overwhelming and predominatingly civil flavour, particularly offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership, or such like transactions. Or even offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc. or family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal. In all such cases, the parties should have resolved their entire dispute by themselves, mutually. Further, guidelines were issued by the Apex Court in **Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab** [2014 (6) SCC 466] and recently in **Rajesh Kamath J. and Others v. Mohana Kurup and Others** [AIR 2016 SC 2452]. - 7.I have considered the rival submissions and I have gone through the materials on record. The offence committed Crl.M.C. No. 5261 of 2016 5 by the petitioners cannot be said to be grave and serious having ingredients of extreme mental depravity. It also does not appear that the offence in this case will have a serious impact on the society. More over, when the respondent No.2 has settled the matter, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and the continuation of the criminal case against the petitioners would be a futile exercise. It would also put the petitioners and the 2[nd] respondent to great oppression and prejudice In the result, Annexure-A1 final report in Crime No.1097 of 2011 of the Palarivattom Police Station and the proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.C.No.1036 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-IX are quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V. JUDGE** SKS //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE