High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2017-01-17Petition allowed; proceedings quashed as to the...

JAYASINGH J.C., ARUNDEV J.C. and SUNNY @ UNNI v. STATE OF KERALA and OTHERS

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C.No. 65 of 2017

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date: 2017-01-17
Court Decision / Holding: Quash proceedings: The High Court allowed the petition under Section 482 CrPC, quashing CC 532/2011 and the final report against the petitioners, thereby terminating the criminal proceedings.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; proceedings quashed as to the petitioners under CC 532/2011; ends of justice and peace promoted; further proceedings and final report quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

JAYASINGH J.C
ARUNDEV J.C
SUNNY @ UNNI

Respondents

State of Kerala
Sub Inspector of Police, Kallambalam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District
Prajjith
Sujatha
Sugunanandan
Leena

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Raju Sebastian Vadakkekkara (advocate)

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor Sri E.C. Bineesh
• Sri S. Krishna Kumar (Mangalam) (advocate)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a criminal miscellaneous case under Section 482 CrPC filed by accused nos. 1–3 seeking to quash CC 532 of 2011 (Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Nedumangad) arising from FIR Crime No. 108/2004 of Kallambalam Police Station. The petition challenges the charges under sections 452, 324, 354, 427 read with 34 IPC, alleging house trespass and assault on respondents 3–6 on 4 April 2004. The petition argues that the parties are near relatives and neighbours who have resolved their differences and wish to live in peace; continuing the criminal proceedings would serve no public interest and would undermine peace. The Public Prosecutor initially expressed reservations about quashing solely on settlement but did not cite other cases against the petitioners. The court reiterates Supreme Court authority from Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab that, in appropriate cases, amicable settlements may justify quashing to secure ends of justice and prevent abuse of process, particularly where the offence is not grave and there is little likelihood of conviction. After evaluating the nature of the offence and the prospects of success, the court exercises its extraordinary powers under Section 482 CrPC and allows the petition, quashing all proceedings in CC 532/2011 and the final report lodged against the petitioners. The order emphasizes peace, ends of justice, and avoidance of needless prosecution.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)Sections 452, 324, 354, 427 read with 34 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ends of justice
Prevention of abuse of process of law
Amicable settlement between victim and wrongdoer can justify quashing under Section 482 CrPC
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 – endorsement of quashing due to settlement
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 – reiteration of the settlement principle

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that the dispute is personal and familial, with near relations and neighbours involved. They highlighted that the parties have sworn affidavits expressing a desire to bury the hatchet and live peacefully, and argued that continuing the criminal proceedings would neither serve public interest nor justice, but would frustrate reconciliation. They urged the court to exercise its inherent powers to quash the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC to restore peace and avoid undue harassment and waste of time.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents’ side, represented by the Public Prosecutor, expressed reservations about quashing based solely on settlement, noting that such a move could undermine the process and public interest if the offences are serious. They acknowledged no other cases against the petitioners but argued that a blanket quashing approach should be approached with caution; however, no strong counter-arguments in the document are elaborated beyond the reservation that Section 482 quashing in such cases requires careful consideration.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 (10) SCC 303	Positive	Cited to support the principle that amicable settlements between victim and offender can justify quashing criminal proceedings to secure ends of justice.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	2014 (6) SCC 466	Positive	Reinforces the use of settlement to terminate proceedings where ends of justice and avoidance of abuse of process are satisfied.

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 JAYASINGH J.C., ARUNDEV J.C. and SUNNY @ UNNI v. STATE OF KERALA and OTHERS 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** ## **TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/27TH POUSHA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 65 of 2017** **----------------------** **CC 532/2011 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I,NEDUMANGAD CRIME NO. 108/2004 OF KALLAMBALAM POLICE STATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** **---------------** **PETITIONERS/1S,2ND AND 3RD ACCUSED: ----------------------------------** ## **1. JAYASINGH J.C,** - **S/O.JAYADEVAN, AGED 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT J.C.LAND, VADASSERIKONAM P.O., NJEKKAD P.O., VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** ## **2. ARUNDEV J.C,** - **S/O.JAYADEVAN, AGED 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT J.C.LAND, VADASSERIKONAM P.O., NJEKKAD P.O., VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** ## **3. SUNNY @ UNNI,** - **S/O.SURENDRAN, AGED 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT POYKAYIL VEEDU,VADASSERIKONAM P.O., NJEKKAD P.O., VARKALA,** - **THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.RAJU SEBASTIAN VADAKKEKKARA** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE, DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & CW2 TO CW3:** **---------------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA,** - **REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.** **2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALLAMBALAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695001.** ## **3. PRAJITH,** - **S/O.SUKUMARAN, AGED 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT HEENA SADANAM, NEAR SUDHAKARA PHARMACY, VADASSERIKONAM P.O., NJEKKAD, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695143.** **4. SUJATHA, D/O.BHARGAVI, AGED 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT LEENA SADANAM, NEAR SUDHAKARA PHARMACY, VADASSERIKONAM P.O., NJEKKAD, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695143.** **-2-** **-2CRMC 65 OF 2017:** ## **----------------** ## **5. SUGUNANANDAN,** **S/O.PEETHAMBARAN, AGED 74 YEARS, RESIDING AT LEENA SADANAM, NEAR SUDHAKARA PHARMACY, VADASSERIKONAM P.O., NJEKKAD, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695143.** ## **6. LEENA,** - **D/O.SUJATHA, NEAR SUDHAKARA PHARMACY, VADASSERIKONAM P.O., NJEKKAD, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695143.** **R1,R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI E.C.BINEESH R3-R6 BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNA KUMAR (MANGALAM)** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **K.V.** ## **Crl.MC.No. 65 of 2017 () -------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES ----------------------ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 5-4-2004 IN CRIME NO.108/2004 OF KALLAMBALAM POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 15-5-2004 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 19-12-2016 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT. ANNEXURE IV TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 19-12-2016 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT/CW2. ANNEXURE V TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 19-12-2016 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT/CW3. ANNEXURE VI TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 19-12-2016 OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT/CW4. RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES NIL -----------------------/TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE** **K.V.** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.65 of 2017** ## **----------------------------------------Dated this the 17[th] day of January, 2017** ## **O R D E R** - 1.This petition is filed under S.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 herein are the accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.532 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Nedumangad. In the aforesaid case they face indictment under sections 452, 324, 354, 427 read with 34 of the IPC. - 3.The prosecution allegation is that on 4.4.2004 at about - 1 p.m.,the petitioners herein in furtherance of their common intention committed house trespass and assaulted respondents 3 to 6 and thus committed the offence. Crl.M.C.65/2017 2 4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners as well as respondents 3 to 6 are near relatives as well as neighbours. It is submitted that in the course of the proceedings, the parties have decided to bury the hatchet and to live in peace and harmony. The affidavits sworn to by the party respondents are referred to by the learned counsel to bring home the point that the disputes have been resolved. 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. - 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 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 Crl.M.C.65/2017 3 against the petitioners. ## 6.I have considered the submissions . 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** Crl.M.C.65/2017 4 ## **466,** the pertinent observations which are as under: ## _XXXXXXXXXXXX_ _29.2. When the parties have reached 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 5 Crl.M.C.65/2017 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 invoking its extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings. In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-II final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.C.No.532 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Nedumangad are quashed. **Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE** vps