High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-04-20Quashed

Jijin Frank @ Chichi and Martin Mathew v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C. No. 719/2023

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. G. Ajithkumar
Judgment Date: 2023-04-20
Court Decision / Holding: The High Court allowed the Crl.M.C. and quashed the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 1648/2021, Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kollam.
Final Disposition: Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Jijin Frank @ Chichi
Martin Mathew

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
The Station House Officer, Sakthikulangara Police Station, Kollam District
Sonu
Agnel Santosh
Sanjo Francis

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. K. Rakesh

Counsels for Respondents

• SMT. V. Sreeja, Senior Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 CrPC filed by accused Nos. 1 and 2, Jijin Frank alias Chichi and Martin Mathew, seeking to quash C.C. No. 1648/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kollam, arising from Crime No. 936/2021 of Sakthikulangara Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioners include sections 294(b) (criminal insult), 323 (hurt), 326 (causing grievous hurt), 427 (mischief) and 506 read with 34 IPC. The petition argues that a settlement has been reached with the de facto complainant CW1, Sonu, and that there is no continuing grievance, justifying quashing under Section 482 CrPC. Annexures B–D and the SHO report corroborate the settlement. The Public Prosecutor represented the state and brought the record on record. The petition cites Madan Mohan Abott v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19; (2008) 4 SCC 582) and P. Dharmaraj v. Shanmugam and Others (AIR 2022 SC 4195), and discusses the principles from Parbatbhai Aahir (supra) to emphasize that quashing may be appropriate in private-dispute settlements where the offence is not heinous and conviction is unlikely, though public interest must be weighed. On these facts, the High Court holds that continuing the proceedings would be futile and quashes the entire case (CC 1648/2021). The order is by a Single Judge, Justice P.G. Ajithkumar.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 CrPCSections 294(b), 323, 326, 427 and 506 read with 34 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Settlement of private disputes can justify quashing under Section 482 CrPC when the offence is not heinous and the complainant’s grievance is resolved.
Heinous offences (e.g., murder, rape, dacoity) should not be quashed merely due to a private settlement.
Economic/financial offences with a broader impact may still be quashed in appropriate situations where the dispute has a civil flavour and the settlement makes conviction unlikely.
Public interest in punishing serious offences overrides private settlements.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argued that the dispute was purely private and the settlement with CW1, the first witness, eliminates the possibility of conviction; hence, in light of Madan Mohan Abott v. State of Punjab and subsequent Supreme Court guidance, the High Court should exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings, particularly as the offences arose from a private disagreement and the gravity of the alleged acts did not warrant continued prosecution. The civil-relations flavour of the matter and the witnesses’ affidavits corroborate settlement, making a trial futile and oppressive.

Contentions of Respondents

The state record was placed before the court, including the SHO’s report and testimony of Sonu. The arguments emphasize balancing the private settlement against public interest and consider Supreme Court principles that avoid quashing only in exceptional circumstances; however, given the private nature of the dispute and the absence of a continuing grievance, the court may still quash where appropriate.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Madan Mohan Abott v. State of Punjab	2008(3) KLT 19 : (2008) 4 SCC 582	Positive	Quoted to support the principle that settlements in private disputes can justify quashing under Section 482 CrPC, except for heinous offences.
P. Dharmaraj v. Shanmugam and Others	AIR 2022 SC 4195	Positive	Cited to lay down the general parameters about when quashing is permissible in light of settlement and the gravity of the offence.
Parbatbhai Aahir (supra)	Parbatbhai Aahir (supra)	Mentioned Only	Referenced for the discussion in paragraphs 16.6-16.10 but not relied upon as a binding directive in the present case.

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 Jijin Frank @ Chichi and Martin Mathew 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 P.G. AJITHKUMAR** **THURSDAY, THE 20[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 30TH CHAITHRA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 719 OF 2023** ## **C.C. NO.1648/2021 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT** ## **- II, KOLLAM** **CRIME NO. 936/2021 OF SAKTHIKULANGARA POLICE STATION,** ## **KOLLAM DISTRICT** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 & 2:** **1 JIJIN FRANK @ CHICHI AGED 28 YEARS S/O. VICTOR, AJIN NIVAS, KANIYAMKADA PALLIPURAYIDAM, KAVANDU P.O., MEENATH CHERRY, SAKTHIKULANGARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 691 003** **2 MARTIN MATHEW AGED 27 YEARS S/O. MATHEW, PUTHAN KANNITTA HOUSE, MUKKAD, KAVANDU P.O., MEENATH CHERRY, SAKTHIKULANGARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 6910 03** ## **BY ADV. K.RAKESH** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE,COMPLAINANT & INJURED:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN – 682031** Crl.M.C. No. 719/2023 2 |**2**|**THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER**| |---|---| ||**SAKTHIKULANGARA POLICE STATION,**| ||**KOLLAM DISTRICT,**| ||**PIN – 691581**| |**3**|**SONU**| ||**AGED 19 YEARS**| ||**S/O. YESUDAS,**| ||**PUTHEN KANNITTAYIL VEEDU,**| ||**ROSE MOUNT, HOLY FAMILY NAGAR,**| ||**MEENATHU CHERRY,**| ||**SAKTHIKULANGARA VILLAGE,**| ||**KAVANDU P.O., KOLLAM TALUK,**| ||**KOLLAM DISTRICT,**| ||**PIN – 691003**| |**4**|**AGNEL SANTHOSH**| ||**AGED 19 YEARS**| ||**S/O. SANTHOSH JOHN,**| ||**POOMUGATHU HOUSE,**| ||**ROSE MOUNT, HOLY FAMILY NAGAR,**| ||**MUKKAD MEENATHU CHERRY,**| ||**SAKTHIKULANGARA VILLAGE,**| ||**KAVANDU P.O., KOLLAM TALUK,**| ||**KOLLAM DISTRICT,**| ||**PIN – 691003**| |**5**|**SANJO FRANCIS**| ||**AGED 19 YEARS**| ||**S/O. FRANCIS ALBERT,**| ||**ST. JOSEPH BHAVANAM,**| ||**ROSE MOUNT, HOLY FAMILY NAGAR - 18,**| ||**MUKKAD MEENATHU CHERRY,**| ||**SAKTHIKULANGARA VILLAGE,**| ||**KAVANDU P.O., KOLLAM TALUK,**| ||**KOLLAM DISTRICT,**| ||**PIN – 691003**| ||**R1 & R2 BY SMT. V. SREEJA, SENIOR PUBLIC**| ||**PROSECUTOR**| ## **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION** **ON 20.04.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Crl.M.C. No. 719/2023 3 ## ORDER Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C. No. 1648/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - II, Kollam. Offences alleged against them are punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 326, 427 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 1648/2021 on the ground that the matter has been settled between the petitioners and CW1, the first witness in the charge sheet, Sri. Sonu, S/o. Yesudas. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor placed on record a report of the Station House Officer, Sakthikulangara Police Station, Kollam producing therewith statement of Sri. Sonu, S/o. Yesudas. 4. The allegations against the petitioners based on which C.C.No.1648/2021 was instituted, are that, on Crl.M.C. No. 719/2023 4 07.11.2021, the petitioners in furtherance of their common intention attacked and inflicted injuries to Sri. Sonu using a vehicle key, abused him and caused damages to his mobile phone. An affidavit sworn to by Sri. Sonu and also affidavit sworn to by second and third witnesses, who witnessed the incident and were present along with Sri. Sonu at the time of incident, were produced as Annexures B to D. 5. In the said affidavit as well as in the statement of Sri. Sonu placed on record by the Station House Officer, Sakthikulangara Police Station, Kollam, he has iterated that the entire dispute between himself and the petitioners were settled and he has no further grievance against the petitioners. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that this is a case where the law laid down by the Apex Court in _**Madan Mohan Abott v. State of Punjab [2008(3) KLT 19 : (2008) 4 SCC 582]**_ is applicable. It was held therein that if the dispute is purely personal, court can accept the compromise and put an end to the proceedings. Crl.M.C. No. 719/2023 5 ## 7. _In_ _**P.Dharmaraj v. Shanmugam and Others**_ _**[AIR 2022 SC 4195]**_ the Apex Court reiterated the parameters to be borne in mind while considering the request for quashing the criminal proceedings. It was held: _“41. In Parbatbhai Aahir (supra), referred to by the High Court in the impugned order, a 3 member Bench of this Court again summarised the broad principles on this question in paragraph 16. Paragraph 16.6 and 16.8 to 16.10 of the decision read as follows:-_ _“16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences._ _16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute._ _16.9 In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and 16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic wellbeing of the State have implications_ Crl.M.C. No. 719/2023 6 _which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.”_ _42. Thus it is clear from the march of law that the Court has to go slow even while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC or Article 226 of the Constitution in the matter of quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of a settlement reached between the parties, when the offences are capable of having an impact not merely on the complainant and the accused but also on others.”_ 8. In the light of the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions, I am of the view that the facts and circumstances of the case justify quashing of proceedings in C.C.No. 1648/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - II, Kollam in the wake of the settlement of the dispute between the petitioners and the defacto complainant. Continuance of the said case in the aforementioned circumstances will only be a futile exercise. In such circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and the entire proceedings in C.C.No. 1648/2021 on the files of the Crl.M.C. No. 719/2023 7 Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -II, Kollam are quashed. Sd/- **P.G. AJITHKUMAR JUDGE** DCS/20.04.2023 Crl.M.C. No. 719/2023 8 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** |**ANNEXURE A**|**CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN**| |---|---| ||**CRIME NO.936/2021 OF THE**| ||**SAKTHIKULANGARA POLICE STATION**| |**ANNEXURE B**|**AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 3RD**| ||**RESPONDENT ON 2-1-2023**| |**ANNEXURE C**|**AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 4TH**| ||**RESPONDENT ON 2-1-2023**| |**ANNEXURE D**|**AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 5TH**| ||**RESPONDENT ON 2-1-2023**|