Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed

George Mulackal v. State of Kerala; Sharath, Jayamon, Arun Mathew v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C.No.3502/2020; Crl.M.C.No.3503/2020

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • V.G. Arun
Judgment Date
2020-08-20
Court Decision / Holding
The High Court allowed both Crl.M.C. Nos. 3502/2020 and 3503/2020. Annexure FIRs and the proceedings in Crime No. 222/2020 and 39/2020 of Ullikkal Police Station were quashed, effectively ending the prosecutions against the petitioners.
Final Disposition
Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • George Mulackal
  • Sharath
  • Jayamon
  • Arun Mathew

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
  • Mini Raghavan
  • George Mulackal (respondent in Crl.M.C.3503)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • B. Muhammed Shaheel
  • • K. Reeha Khader

Counsels for Respondents

  • • K. Reeha Khader
  • • B. Muhammed Shaheel

Case Synopsis & Summary

Two connected Criminal Miscellaneous Cases (Crl.M.C. Nos. 3502/2020 and 3503/2020) were heard by a single judge of the Kerala High Court. The petitions were filed by accused in two Ullikkal Police Station crimes: Crime No. 222/2020 under Sections 500 and 509 IPC, and Crime No. 39/2020 under Section 379 read with 34 IPC. The dispute between complainants and accused was resolved by settlements, supported by affidavits from the de facto complainants reiterating the settlement. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners had no criminal antecedents and that the offences arose from a misunderstanding which has since been sorted out. The court noted the gravity of the offences and the injuries caused but found the matter amicably settled and no public interest involved; continuing the proceedings would amount to abuse of process. Citing Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008) 4 SCC 582 and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, the court held there was no impediment to granting the relief sought. Consequently, the petitions were allowed and the FIRs and proceedings in both crimes were quashed. The order underscores the High Court’s power to quash criminal proceedings where there is an amicable settlement and no public interest, in a Single Judge bench.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 500 IPCSection 509 IPCSection 379 read with Section 34 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Abuse of process of court
  • Settlement between parties as a basis to quash criminal proceedings where no public interest remains

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants contended that the offences arose from a misunderstanding and the parties have amicably settled the dispute. They stressed there are no criminal antecedents and affidavits from the de facto complainants reiterate the settlement. It was argued that continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of process and serve no public interest, with no realistic likelihood of conviction. Relying on Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, they urged the High Court to exercise its inherent power to quash the proceedings. The petitions sought quashing of the FIRs and pending proceedings to conserve judicial time and prevent harassment to the parties.

Contentions of Respondents

The State accepted the settlement and, through the Public Prosecutor, indicated there are no public interest concerns and that the offences stem from a misunderstanding since resolved. While acknowledging the gravity of the offences, the state submits that with an amicable settlement and no public interest to protect, there is no impediment to relief and that quashing the proceedings would avoid abuse of process and conserve judicial resources.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab(2008) 4 SCC 582PositiveCited to support quashing criminal proceedings where there is an amicable settlement and no public interest remains; the court follows this principle.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another(2012) 10 SCC 303PositiveCited for the same principle; reinforces the permissibility of quashing where settlement exists and public interest is not served by continuation.

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 Mulackal v. State of Kerala; Sharath, Jayamon, Arun Mathew 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 V.G.ARUN** **THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 29TH SRAVANA, 1942** **Crl.MC.No.3502 OF 2020(G)** **CRIME NO.222/2020 OF Ulikkal Police Station , Kannur** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **GEORGE MULACKAL AGED 68 YEARS S/O.MATHAYI, MULACKAL (H), NUCHIYAD, MANIPPARA P.O., IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN CODE - 670705.** **BY ADV. SRI.B.MUHAMMED SHAHEEL** ## **RESPONDENT/STATE AND DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN - 682031. (INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN CRIME NO.222/2020 OF ULIKKAL POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT).** - **2 MINI RAGHAVAN** **W/O.RAGHAVAN, AGED 43 YEARS, ITTISSERY (H), NUCHIYAD, MANIPPARA P.O., IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN CODE - 670 705.** **R2 BY ADV. K.REEHA KHADER** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **PP SREEJA V. AND SR.PP.C.S.HRITHWIK** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.08.2020, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.3503/2020(G), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.MC.3502/2020, Crl.MC.3503/2020 2** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 29TH SRAVANA, 1942 Crl.MC.No.3503 OF 2020(G)** **CRIME NO.39/2020 OF Ulikkal Police Station , Kannur** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 TO 3:** **1 SHARATH AGED 26 YEARS S/O. RAGHAVAN, ITTISSERY (H), NUCHIYAD, MANIPPARA P.O, IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT,PINCODE-670 705 2 JAYAMON AGED 25 YEARS S/O.JOHNSON, KUNNUMPURATH (H), NUCHIYAD AMSOM, VENGALOD, MANIPPARA P.O, IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT,PINCODE-670 705 3 ARUN MATHEW AGED 26 YEARS S/O. MATHEW, KOTTAKKAT (H), NUCHIYAD, MANIPPARA P.O, IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT,PINCODE-670 705** **BY ADV. SMT.K.REEHA KHADER** ## **RESPONDENT/STATE AND DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM COCHIN-682 031 (INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN CRIME NO.39/2020 OF ULIKKAL POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT) 2 GEORGE MULACKAL AGED 68 YEARS S/O. MATHAYI, MULACKAL(H), NUCHIYAD, MANIPPARA P.O, IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT,PINCODE-670 705** ## **R2 BY ADV. B.MUHAMMED SHAHEEL** **Crl.MC.3502/2020, Crl.MC.3503/2020 3** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.08.2020, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.3502/2020(G), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.MC.3502/2020, Crl.MC.3503/2020 4** ## **V.G.ARUN, J.** **----------------------------------------------CRL.M.C.Nos. 3502 and 3503 of 2020 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 20[th] day of August, 2020** ## **O R D E R** Petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.3502 of 2020 is the accused in Crime No.222 of 2020 of Ulikkal Police Station, registered for offences punishable under Sections 500 and 509 of IPC. Petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.3503 of 2020 are the accused in Crime No.39 of 2020 of Ulikkal Police Station, registered for offences punishable under Sections 379 read with 34 of IPC. The dispute between the parties, which was the reason for lodging the complaints, leading to registration of the crimes, has been settled. Affidavits have been filed by the persons at whose instance the crimes were registered reiterating the fact of settlement. 2. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also, who, on instructions, submits that the petitioners in both cases ## **Crl.MC.3502/2020, Crl.MC.3503/2020 5** have no criminal antecedents and the crimes were registered on the basis of some misunderstanding, which, it is informed, has since been sorted out. 3. Having considered the gravity of the offences alleged, nature of the injury caused and having perused the affidavit filed by the de facto complainants, the contents of which are submitted to be true and voluntary, I am satisfied that the matter has been amicably settled and that no public interest is involved in this matter. Moreover, in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, possibility of the criminal proceedings ending in conviction is remote. As such, continuance of the proceedings will amount to an abuse of process of court and hence, in view of the legal position set out by the Honourable Supreme Court in _**Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab**_ [(2008) 4 SCC 582] and _**Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another**_ [(2012) 10 SCC 303], there is no impediment in granting the relief sought. In the result, this Crl.M.Cs are allowed. Annexure A1 FIR (Crl.M.C.No.3502 of 2020) and the proceedings in Crime No.222 of 2020 of Ullikkal Police Station and **Crl.MC.3502/2020, Crl.MC.3503/2020 6** Annexure A1 (Crl.M.C.No.3503 of 2020) and the proceedings in Crime No.39 of 2020 of Ulikkal Police Station are quashed. vgs **Sd/V.G.ARUN JUDGE** **Crl.MC.3502/2020, Crl.MC.3503/2020 7** ## **APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 3502/2020** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.222/2020 OF ULIKKAL POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT PENDING BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MATTANNUR. ANNEXURE A2 AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **Crl.MC.3502/2020, Crl.MC.3503/2020 8** ## **APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 3503/2020** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE-A1** **THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.39/2020 OF ULIKKAL POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT PENDING BEFORE THE GRAMEENA NYAYALA,IRIKKUR, KANNUR DISTRICT** **ANNEXURE-A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE REPORT FOR ADDING THE NAMES AND DETAILS OF THE ACCUSED ANNEXURE-A3 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT**