High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-06-22Quashed; proceedings in C.P. No. 103 of 2014 ar...

Kiran Christopher and others v. State of Kerala and Hashim and Ajas

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No.3170 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
Judgment Date: 2016-06-22
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is allowed; all further proceedings against petitioners in C.P. No. 103 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Sasthamcotta, shall stand quashed.
Final Disposition: Quashed; proceedings in C.P. No. 103 of 2014 are quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

KIRAN CHRISTEPHER
DELISH
JIJAS
FEBIN
SUNIL KUMAR
RATHEESH
RAJESH @ KUTTAPPAN

Respondents

State of Kerala through the Sub Inspector of Police, Sasthamcotta Police Station, represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam-682031
Hashim
Ajas

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. K.Siju
• Smt. Seetha S.

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri.A.Muhammed Raffi
• Public Prosecutor Smt. Sareena George

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case under Section 482 CrPC arising from Crime No. 1377 of 2012 registered at Sasthamcotta Police Station, linked to C.P. No. 103/2014 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sasthamcotta. Petitioners 1–7 (KIRAN CHRISTEPHER; DELISH; JIJAS; FEBIN; SUNIL KUMAR; RATHEESH; RAJESH @ KUTTAPPAN) are accused in a dispute alleged to involve offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 308 read with Section 149 IPC, allegedly occurring on 20.12.2012 when the petitioners formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted the de facto complainant and a friend (respondents 2 and 3). The respondents contend that the matter is serious and ongoing, while the petitioners submit that the matter has since been amicably settled. During the course of proceedings, affidavits from the 2nd and 3rd respondents affirming the compromise were filed. The learned Judge examined whether quashing would serve ends of justice, noting the case involves a personal dispute with no public peace impact and that continuing proceedings would cause oppression. Relying on the principles in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court held that exceptional inherent jurisdiction can justify quashing. Consequently, the petition is allowed and all further proceedings in C.P. No. 103 of 2014 are quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of CrPCSections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 308 read with Section 149 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Extraordinary inherent jurisdiction of High Courts under Section 482 CrPC
Ends of justice as a guiding principle for quashing criminal proceedings
Settlement/compromise in criminal cases can warrant quashing in exceptional circumstances

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that the disputes among the parties are personal in nature and have culminated in an amicable settlement during the pendency of the case. They submitted that there is no acrimony presently, the accused have no substantial antecedents, and continued prosecution would cause oppression and prejudice rather than serve justice. Citing the settled principles in Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, they urged the Court to exercise its extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings in the interest of justice and to promote social harmony.

Contentions of Respondents

The Respondents, through the State counsel and private respondents’ affidavits, argued that the case involves serious offences and public order implications. They noted the existence of another crime against one petitioner but accepted the prima facie fact of compromise by 2nd and 3rd respondents. The State argued that quashing must be exercised sparingly and only when it would not jeopardize public interest; however, given the private nature of the dispute and the contemporaneous settlement, the Court could consider quashing to prevent oppression and prejudice without undermining justice.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 (4) KLT 108	Positive	Cited as guiding precedent; used to justify invocation of extraordinary inherent jurisdiction to quash in exceptional circumstances where settlement and ends of justice considerations prevail.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr.	2014 (6) SCC 466	Positive	Cited for the same purpose of guiding principles on exercise of inherent jurisdiction to quash when compromise occurs and ends of justice require it.

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 Kiran Christopher and others v. State of Kerala and Hashim and Ajas 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** ## **WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2016/1ST ASHADHA, 1938** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3170 of 2016 ()** ## **---------------------------** ## **C.P.NO.103/2014 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, SASTHAMCOTTA CRIME NO. 1377/2012 OF SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION , KOLLAM** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :** **--------------------------------------** - **1 KIRAN CHRISTEPHER** - **AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. CHRISTEPHER, PRAMEELA MANDIRAM, MANAKKARA MURI, SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** ## **2. DELISH** - **AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. SAIMON, DELEEP BHAVAN, MANAKKARA MURI, SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **3. JIJAS , S/O.JAMAL,** - **AGED 24 YEARS, JIJAS MANZIL, PALLISSERIKKAL MURI, SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **4. FEBIN** **AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. JESTINE, FEBINLAND, MANAKKARA MURI, SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** ## **5. SUNIL KUMAR** **AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. THULASI, KUTTIYIL PADEETTATHIL VEEDU, THODIYOOR MURI, THODIYOOR VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **6. RATHEESH** - **AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, KANJIKKAL VEEDU, THRIKKUNNAPUZHA VADAKKU MURI, SOORANADU THEKKU MURI, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **7. RAJESH @ KUTTAPPAN AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNAN KUTTY, THEKKECHARUVILA VEEDU, MANAKKARA MURI, SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.K.SIJU SMT.SEETHA.S.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE :** **------------------------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA** - **THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.** ## **2. HASHIM** **AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. SULAIMAN KUNJU, CHARUVILA VEEDU, MUTHUPILAKKAD WEST MURI, SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 690 521** ## **3. AJAS** **AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. SUNIL, SINI HOUSE, MANAKKARA MURI, SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **R2,R3 BY ADV. SRI.A.MUHAMMED RAFFI R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-062016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.MC.No. 3170 of 2016 ()** **---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES** **------------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE 1 COPY OF FIR WITH FIS IN CRIME NO.1377/2012 OF SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE 2 COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.1377/2012 OF SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE 3 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT REGARDING COMPROMISE DTD.29.7.2015.** **ANNEXURE 4 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT REGARDING COMPROMISE DTD.29.7.2015.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES** **----------------------------------------** ## **NIL** **//True Copy//** **P.S. To Judge** **Bb** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V., J.** ------------------------------------------ **Crl.M.C. No.3170 OF 2016** -----------------------------------------Dated this the 22[nd] day of June, 2016 ## **O R D E R ~~~~~~~~** 1. The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 to 7 in C.P.No.103 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sasthamcotta. The above said case has arisen from Crime No.1377 of 2012 of the Sasthamcotta Police Station registered at the instance of the 2[nd] respondent herein alleging commission of offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 308 read with Section 149 of the IPC. - 2.In this petition, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners seek to quash the above said criminal proceedings on the ground that the matter has been compromised between the parties. **Crl.M.C.No.3170/2016** **-2-** - 3.The prosecution allegation is that, on 20.12.2012 at about 5.30 p.m., the petitioners formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and attacked the _de facto_ complainant and his friend. The injured witness has been arrayed as the 3[rd] respondent in this petition. - 4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well the learned Public Prosecutor. - 5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners as well as the respondents 3 and 4 were students of the Devaswom Board College, Sasthamcotta and it was during a minor scuffle between the students that the incident had taken place. - 6.The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that the first petitioner is involved in another crime registered by the Sasthamcotta police. No other antecedents are reported is the submission. - 7.It is submitted that during the pendency of the **Crl.M.C.No.3170/2016** **-3-** proceedings, the rival parties have decided to give a quietus to all their subsisting disputes. After much deliberations amongst themselves and at the interventions of persons who are respected by both parties , they have decided to bury the past and turn a new leaf. There is no acrimony between the parties at present and they are living in peace and harmony. To bring on record the settlement, the 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents have filed separate affidavits in which they affirm in unmistakable terms their decision to erase the bitter incidents of the past and to start afresh. - 8.I have given my anxious considerations to the submissions made across the bar and I have also gone through the materials on record. - 9.Though it is reported that another crime has also been registered against the 1[st] petitioner, in the peculiar facts of the instant case , that cannot stand in the way in quashing **Crl.M.C.No.3170/2016** **-4-** the proceedings as the matter has been settled amicably. It is also obvious that the offence is entirely personal in nature and do not affect public peace or tranquility. It is also felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace. In a case such as the instant one, even if the prosecution is allowed to continue, it would not serve any purpose as the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. It can only result in putting the _de facto_ complainant and the accused to unwanted oppression and prejudice. Settlement will augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony. 10.I am of the considered opinion that this is one of those exceptional cases where prayer for invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction can be justifiably invoked to serve the ends of justice as the case falls within the matrix of guidelines laid down by the Apex **Crl.M.C.No.3170/2016** **-5-** Court in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab ( 2012 (4) KLT 108) and Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr. (2014) 6 SCC 466)** and other cases. In the result, this petition is allowed and all further proceedings against petitioners in C.P.No. 103 of 2014 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Sasthamcotta, shall stand quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V. JUDGE** Ps/22/6/16