GOPALAKRISHNAN v. STATE OF KERALA

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
Judgment Date: 2016-11-10
Court Decision / Holding: Petition allowed; quashing of CC 2200/2015 and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; proceedings in CC 2200/2015 quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

GOPALAKRISHNAN
RATHEESH
UNNI @ RAJESH
SUBRAMANYAN
PRASHANTH
SAJEESH @ SAJI
SIVANANDAN @ APPU

Respondents

STATE OF KERALA
SAJEESH
ANEESH

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Sri A. Haroon Rasheed

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri T.R. Renjith, Public Prosecutor (State of Kerala)
• Sri C.R. Rekhesh Sharma, Advocate (for Respondents 2 & 3: Sajeesh and Aneesh)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case (Crl.M.C. No. 7212 of 2016) arising out of CC 2200/2015 pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the 1st Class, Pattambi. Seven petitioners-accused (Gopalakrishnan; Ratheesh; Unni @ Rajesh; Subramanyan; Prashanth; Sajeesh @ Saji; Sivanandan @ Appu) seek invocation of the extraordinary inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings initiated under IPC offences including 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 506(ii) read with 149. The respondents include the State of Kerala and the alleged victims Sajesh and Aneesh. The respondents contend the dispute is personal and quashing would undermine the interest of justice; they rely on procedural safeguards and public interest. The petition cites Supreme Court precedents (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab; Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab) recognizing that, in appropriate circumstances, amicable settlements can justify terminating criminal proceedings to serve ends of justice and prevent abuse of process. The court notes the parties have settled, the offences are not grave, and continuing proceedings would waste time, potentially obstructing peace. On these grounds, the High Court holds that quashing the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC is warranted and allows the petition, quashing CC 2200/2015 and related proceedings against the petitioners.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of CrPCIPC: Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 506(ii) read with Section 149

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ends of justice
Abuse of process of law
Amicable settlement or compromise between victim and wrongdoer as a factor to terminate proceedings

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants moved under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of CC 2200/2015 based on an amicable settlement between the victims and the accused. They submit that the dispute is purely personal, settlement has been achieved, and continuation of criminal proceedings would thwart peace, undermine the ends of justice, and amount to abuse of process given the non-grave nature of the offence and the absence of public interest in pending the case.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the dispute is personal, the settlement does not automatically justify quashing, and public interest in maintaining law and order must be weighed. The State’s counsel and the private respondents urge caution, noting that Section 482 powers should be exercised sparingly and only when it serves ends of justice or prevents abuse of process.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	(2012) 10 SCC 303	Positive	Apex Court held that High Courts can quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases when settlement between victim and accused serves ends of justice and prevents abuse of process.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	(2014) 6 SCC 466	Positive	reiterates that settlement, ends of justice, and prevention of abuse of process are guiding factors for quashing criminal proceedings under 482 CrPC.

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 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/19TH KARTHIKA, 1938** ## **Crl.MC.No. 7212 of 2016 () ---------------------------** **AGAINST CC 2200/2015 of J.M.F.C., PATTAMBI DATED CRIME NO. 1047/2015 OF PATTAMBI POLICE STATION , PALAKKAD** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:** ## **---------------------** ## **1. GOPALAKRISHNAN** **AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANANKUTTY, GIRI NIVAS, KADAMKANDATHIL HOUSE, PERUMUDIYOOR P.O., PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 303.** ## **2. RATHEESH** **AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. RAVEENDRAN, ALIKAPARAMBU HOUSE, PERUMUDIYOOR P.O., PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 303.** **3. UNNI @ RAJESH** - **AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, PARAPPARATHODI HOUSE, PERUMUDIYOOR P.O., PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 303.** **4. SUBRAMANYAN** **AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. KARUPPAN, MARKASSERY HOUSE, DURGA NAGAR, PERUMUDIYOOR P.O.,PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 303.** **5. PRASHANTH** **AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN, CHIRAYIL HOUSE, PERUMUDIYOOR P.O., PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 303.** **6. SAJEESH @ SAJI** **AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. SASI, ALIKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PERUMUDIYOOR P.O.,PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 303.** **7. SIVANANDAN @ APPU** **AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. KUMARAN, MANGATTU HOUSE, PERUMUDIYOOR P.O., PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 303.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.A.HAROON RASHEED** **RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:** **--------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA** - **REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATTAMBI POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **2. SAJEESH** - **AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. CHANDRAN, PUTHAMMVEETTIL HOUSE, PERUMUDIYOOR P.O., PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 303.** **3. ANEESH** - **AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, CHELAMBATTAKUNNU HOUSE, PERUMUDIYOOR P.O., PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 303.** **R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.C.R.REKHESH SHARMA R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. T.R. RENJITH** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON** **10-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **Crl.MC.No. 7212 of 2016 ()** ## **---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:** **-----------------------** **A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 1047/2015 OF PATTAMBI POLICE STATION.** **A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT/CHARGE SHEET ALONG WITH WITNESS MEMORANDUM IN CRIME NO. 1047/2015 OF PATTAMBI POLICE STATION.** **A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT REGARDING SETTLEMENT SIGNEED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **A4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT REGARDING SETTLEMENT SIGNEED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL** **-----------------------** **TRUE COPY** **P.A.TO JUDGE.** **kp** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## Crl.M.C. No. 7212 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## Dated 10[th] November, 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **ORDER** - 1.This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) with a prayer to invoke the extraordinary inherent powers and to quash the pending criminal proceedings. - 2.The petitioners are accused 1 to 7 in C.C.No.2200 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of 1[st] Class, Pattambi. In the aforesaid case they stand indicted for having committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 506(ii) read with Section 149 of the IPC. - 3.The prosecution allegation is that on 7.11.2015 at 10 pm, the petitioners herein formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object wrongfully restrained respondents 2 and 3 and assaulted Crl.M.C. No.7212 of 2016 -2- them causing injuries. - 4.Heard the submissions advanced. - 5.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. Attention of this Court is invited to the affidavits filed by them to buttress his submission. It is urged that the dispute is purely personal in nature and would not affect public peace or tranquility. Summing up it is prayed that the criminal proceedings be terminated to promote peace and harmony. 6.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 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. Crl.M.C. No.7212 of 2016 -3- ## 7.In **Gian singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303** Apex Court has laid down that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. It was observed as follows : _“61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”_ ## 8.The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court ## in **Narinder singh v. State of Punjab. (2014) 6 SCC** **466,** the pertinent observations which are as under: _XXXXXXXXXXXX_ _29.2. When the parties have reached_ Crl.M.C. No.7212 of 2016 -4- _the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:_ _(i) ends of justice, or_ _(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives._ _xxxxxxx_ _xxxxxxx_ 9.The offence committed 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. It is felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and secure the ends of justice. Even otherwise, persisting with the prosecution would be nothing but a waste of time as the prospects of conviction would be bleak. 10.Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court will be well justified in Crl.M.C. No.7212 of 2016 -5- invoking its extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings. In the result, this petition will stand allowed. AnnexureA2 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.C.No.2200 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of 1[st] Class, Pattambi are quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE** kp/-11.11.16