High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed; proceedings in C.C. No.1147/2019 are q...

Georgekutty alias Tibin S/o Joseph and Subin Joseph and Joseph alias Jose v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:CRL.M.C. No. 8823 of 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date
2023-11-10
Court Decision / Holding
This Criminal Miscellaneous case is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C. No.1147/2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I (Forest Offences), Thodupuzha arising from Crime No.159/2019 of Kaliyar Police Station, Idukki are quashed.
Final Disposition
Quashed; proceedings in C.C. No.1147/2019 are quashed and CrMC allowed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Georgekuttay alias Tibin S/o Joseph
  • Subin Joseph
  • Joseph alias Jose

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by the Sub Inspector of Police Kaliyar Police Station, Idukki District, Kerala, PIN 685582
  • Sijo Mathew aged 43 years, s/o Mathew, Parathazhathu House, Parappuzha P.O, Ellichuvadu Bhagam, Kodikulam Village, Idukki District, Kerala, PIN 685582

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • KURIAN ANTONY MATHEW
  • • ANIL SEBASTIAN PULICKEL
  • • SANTHOSH MATHEW
  • • ABI BENNY AREECKAL
  • • MATHEW NEVIN THOMAS

Counsels for Respondents

  • • SMT SREEJA V – PP
  • • SOORAJ S SIVAN - R2

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case (CrMC 8823 of 2023) is a challenge under Section 482 CrPC to quash C.C. No.1147/2019 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I (Forest Offences), Thodupuzha, arising from Crime No.159/2019 of Kaliyar Police Station, Idukki. The petitioners—Georgekutty alias Tibin, Subin Joseph, and Joseph alias Jose—were charged with offences including trespass, insult, and mischief under IPC sections 447, 294(b), 323, 324, 325, 326, and 427 read with 34, in a case that allegedly arose from a dispute with the victim who was allegedly subjected to abuse and intimidation. The petition contends that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and wish to end prosecution; this is supported by an affidavit from the victim, who has no objection to quashing, and is submitted by counsel for the petitioners. The Public Prosecutor, while expressing reservations about quashing non‑compoundable offences, concedes that there is a settlement. The court then relied on established Supreme Court authority (State of MP v Laxmi Narayan and Others; Gian Singh; Narinder Singh) to hold that quashing a non‑compoundable offence can be permissible where the dispute is private and the civil character predominates, particularly when the parties have resolved the entire dispute. It also clarifies limits by noting that heinous offences, offences under special statutes (e.g., P.C. Act), and certain public‑interest concerns should not be quashed solely on compromise. After careful scrutiny, the court finds the dispute private and accepts the settlement, allowing the CrMC and quashing all further proceedings in C.C. No.1147/2019. The order thereby ends the case against the petitioners in the pending criminal matter.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 CrPCSection 320 CrPCSection 447 IPCSection 294(b) IPCSection 323 IPCSection 324 IPCSection 325 IPCSection 326 IPCSection 427 read with Section 34 IPCSection 307 IPCArms ActPrevention of Corruption Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Power under Section 482 CrPC to quash non‑compoundable offences in private disputes where civil character predominates and parties have settled; supported by Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 688
  • Heinous and serious offences (e.g., murder, rape, dacoity) cannot be quashed under Section 482 CrPC
  • Offences under special statutes (like the Prevention of Corruption Act) or offences by public servants cannot be quashed merely on compromise
  • Incorporation of Section 307 IPC in FIR/charge requires assessment post evidence; not permissible before investigation
  • Antecedents and conduct of the accused, including absconding and how settlement occurred, are relevant factors for quashing under 482 CrPC

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners’ counsel submitted that the dispute between the parties is private in nature and the matter has been settled amicably. They relied on the victim’s affidavit indicating consent to quash the proceedings and contended that continuing to prosecute would be unwarranted where there is a complete settlement and no public interest imperatives demand ongoing action. The argument also invoked established Supreme Court principles that allow quashing non‑compoundable offences under Section 482 CrPC when civil disputes are resolved and the offence is private in nature.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement, emphasizing the need to ensure that the quashing would not undermine public interest or set a dangerous precedent. However, he conceded that the matter has been settled between the parties and that the court should exercise caution and consistent with jurisprudence, particularly given the private nature of the dispute and the lack of any ongoing investigation hindrances.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others2019 (5) SCC 688PositiveThe Supreme Court laid down the framework for quashing non‑compoundable offences under Section 482 CrPC in private disputes when the civil character predominates and there is a settlement.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another2012 (10) SCC 303PositiveCited by Laxmi Narayan’s decision as supportive authority for the principle that settlements can justify quashing non‑compoundable offences in appropriate private‑dispute contexts.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another2014 (6) SCC 466PositiveUsed to harmonize the approach to when quashing can be entertained after careful consideration of the nature of the offence and the settlement terms.

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 Georgekutty alias Tibin S/o Joseph and Subin Joseph and Joseph alias Jose 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 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN`** ``` FRIDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 19TH KARTHIKA, 1945 ``` ## **`CRL.MC NO. 8823 OF 2023`** ## **`C.C.NO.1147/2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I (FOREST OFFENCES), THODUPUZHA ARISING FROM CRIME NO.159/2019 OF KALIYAR POLICE STATION, IDUKKI`** ## **`PETITIONERS:`** - `1 GEORGEKUTTY ALIAS TIBIN S/O JOSEPH, AGED 33 YEARS, KOCHUVEMBILLIL HOUSE, ELLICHUVADU BHAGAM, PARAPUZHA KARA, KODIKULAM VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 685582` - `2 SUBIN JOSEPH AGED 30 YEARS, S/O JOSEPH, KOCHUVEMBILLIL HOUSE,` - `ELLICHUVADU BHAGAM, PARAPUZHA KARA, KODIKULAM VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 685582` - `3 JOSEPH ALIAS JOSE AGED 61 YEARS, S/O ULAHANNAN, KOCHUVEMBILLIL HOUSE, ELLICHUVADU BHAGAM, PARAPUZHA KARA, KODIKULAM VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 685582` - `BY ADVS.` - `KURIAN ANTONY MATHEW` - `ANIL SEBASTIAN PULICKEL` - `SANTHOSH MATHEW` - `ABI BENNY AREECKAL` - `MATHEW NEVIN THOMAS` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - `1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALIYAR POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 685582` - `2 SIJO MATHEW AGED 43 YEARS, S/O MATHEW, PARATHAZHATHU HOUSE,` ``` PARAPPUZHA P.O, ELLICHUVADU BHAGAM, KODIKKULAM VILLAGE, ``` ``` Crl.M.C. NO. 8823 OF 2023 ``` 2 ``` THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 685582 SMT SREEJA V – PP SOORAJ S SIVAN - R2 ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` Crl.M.C. NO. 8823 OF 2023 ``` 3 **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -----------------------------------Crl.M.C. No. 8823 of 2023 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 10[th] day of November, 2023** ## **O R D E R** This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 2. The petitioners are the accused in C.C. No.1147/2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I (Forest Offences), Thodupuzha arising from Crime No.159/2019 of Kaliyar Police Station, Idukki. The above case is charge sheeted against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 447, 294(b), 323, 324, 325, 326, 427 read with 34 of IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused trespassed into the place of the victim and assaulted ``` Crl.M.C. NO. 8823 OF 2023 ``` 4 the victim using filthy language. It is also alleged that the accused also committed mischief. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties have settled their dispute and do not wish to pursue the prosecution proceedings. The counsel relies on the affidavit filed by the victim in support of his contention. The counsel appearing for the victim also submitted that the matter is settled and the victim has no objection in quashing the prosecution. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, has expressed reservations about quashing the proceedings solely on the basis of the settlement. But the Public Prosecutor conceded that the matter is settled between the parties. 6. This Court has considered the submission of the petitioners, victim and the Public Prosecutor and has also gone through the records including the affidavit filed by the victim. ``` Crl.M.C. NO. 8823 OF 2023 ``` 5 7. In **State of Madhya Pradesh v Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019 (5) SCC 688),** three judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized the situation in which non compoundable offences can be quashed invoking the powers under Section 482 of the Code. The apex court in **Laxmi Narayan** 's case (supra) also relied on the law laid down in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another (2012 (10) SCC 303)** and **Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another (2014** **(6) SCC 466)** . The apex court in paragraph 13 of the **Laxmi Narayan** 's case discussed the law in detail and the same is extracted hereunder: “13. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to herein above, it is observed and held as under: i) that the power conferred under S.482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non - compoundable offences under S.320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising ``` Crl.M.C. NO. 8823 OF 2023 ``` 6 out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves; ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society; iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender; iv) offences under S.307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under S.307 IPC and / or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under S.482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of S.307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of S.307 IPC is there for the ``` Crl.M.C. NO. 8823 OF 2023 ``` 7 sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under S.307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital / delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed / charge is framed and / or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of **Narinder Singh** (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated herein above; v) while exercising the power under S.482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of noncompoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement / compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc.” ``` Crl.M.C. NO. 8823 OF 2023 ``` 8 8. Keeping in mind the above dictum laid down by the apex court, this court perused the facts in this case and also perused the documents produced by the parties. After going through the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the dispute is private in nature and the settlement can be accepted. Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous case is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C. No.1147/2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I (Forest Offences), Thodupuzha arising from Crime No.159/2019 of Kaliyar Police Station, Idukki are quashed. **Sd/-** SK **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** ``` Crl.M.C. NO. 8823 OF 2023 ``` 9 ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 8823/2023`** ``` PETITIONERS’ ANNEXURES : ``` - `Annexure A1` - `CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 159/2019 OF THE KALIYAR POLICE STATION.` ``` Annexure A2THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN C.C NO. 1147/2019 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-1, THODUPUZHA . ``` ``` Annexure A3A TRUE COPY OF MATHEW'S DEATH CERTIFICATE DATED 21-10-2019 ISSUED BY THE KODIKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT BEARING REGISTRATION NO. 58/2019. ``` - `Annexure A4 AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17-10-2023` ``` RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES : NIL ```