Kiran, Nishob and Satheesh v. State of Kerala and Others

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
Judgment Date: 2019-03-28
Court Decision / Holding: The petitions are allowed. Annexure-II final report and all further proceedings against the petitioners in CC 2144/2017 are quashed.
Final Disposition: Petitions allowed; final report and pending proceedings quashed against the petitioners.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Kiran
Nishob
Satheesh
Bibin

Respondents

The State of Kerala
Stalin, S/O. Varghese
Sasikumar, S/O. Arvindan
Siju Parekkadan, S/O. Thomas Parekkadan

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K.N. Radhakrishnan (Thiruvalla)

Counsels for Respondents

• Jithin Babu
• Ajith Murali (Public Prosecutor)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case (Crl.MC Nos. 1936 and 2164 of 2019) challenging the validity of the final report in CC 2144 of 2017, arising from Crime No. 1412/2017 at Irinjalakuda. Petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 3 are Kiran, Nishob and Satheesh; in Crl.MC No. 2164/2019, Bibin is added as the 4th accused. The offences alleged are under IPC sections 341, 323, and 506 read with Section 34, and the petitions are filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The crux of the petitions is that the victims and the accused have compromised, with affidavits tracing no grave injuries; it is argued that continuing the prosecution would serve no public interest and would unnecessarily oppress the parties. The respondents State of Kerala and the complainant acknowledge the settlement, asserting there is no public interest in continuing the proceedings. The court notes that the offences are personal in nature and that the compromise is voluntary and genuine. Relying on the Supreme Court's amity settlement doctrine (Gian Singh; Narinder Singh; Yogendra Yadav), the court holds that quashing the final report and related proceedings would promote peace and justice. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed and the final report and proceedings are quashed against the petitioners.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of Cr.P.C.Sections 341, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Amicable settlement of disputes between victim and wrongdoer can justify quashing criminal proceedings (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab)
Reaffirmation of Gian Singh principle (Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab)
Affirmation of settlement to quash in private-party offences (Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another)
Private disputes do not affect public peace; settlement promotes peace and harmony

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants contended that longstanding private disputes have been settled amicably. The affidavits confirm no grave injuries and emphasize that continued prosecution would only perpetuate a private grievance. They urged quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to end the matter and restore peace between parties, noting the settlement is voluntary and genuine.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents supported the amicable settlement, submitting that the victims and accused have reconciled and intend to live peacefully. They argued there is no public interest in continuation of the proceedings given the offences are personal in nature and the settlement would serve the interests of justice and public harmony.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	(2012) 10 SCC 303	Positive	Apex Court held that in appropriate cases, amicable settlements between victims and wrongdoers can justify quashing criminal proceedings; the High Court can take note of such settlements.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	(2014) 6 SCC 466	Positive	Reiterated the Gian Singh principle regarding quashing based on settlement.
Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another	(2014) 9 SCC 653	Positive	Affirmed the approach of quashing proceedings in light of settlement in private disputes.

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 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1941** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1936 of 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 2144/2017 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, IRINJALAKUDA** **CRIME NO.1412/2017 OF IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3:** - **1 KIRAN, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.PRAKASAN, THATTARUPARAMBIL HOUSE, ANAKUTHIYAMBALAM DESOM, KADUPPASSERY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **2 NISHOB, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.SIVAN,PANIKKASSERY HOUSE, KONATHUKUNNU DESOM,THEKKUMKARA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **3 SATHEESH, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.SADANANDAN, POYYARA HOUSE, EDATHIRINJI DESOM, EDTHIRINJI.P.O, KODUNGALLORE TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.K.N.RADHAKRISHNAN(THIRUVALLA)** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE OF KERALA AND THE COMPLAINANT:** - **1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM-682031.** - **2 STALIN, S/O.VARGHESE, KARINGADA HOUSE, KADUPPASSERY DESOM, KADUPPASSERY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680713.** - **3 SASIKUMAR, AGED 44, S/O.ARVINDAN, EDAPPUZHA HOUSE, KADUPPASSERY DESOM, KUDAPPASSERY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680713.** Crl.MC.Nos.1936 & 2164 of 2019 2 **4 SIJU PAREKKADAN, AGED 41, S/O.THOMAS PAREKKADAN, PAREKKADAN HOUSE, KATTUNGACHIRA DESOM, IRINJALAKUDA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680713.** **BY ADV. SRI.JITHIN BABU** **SRI. AJITH MURALI - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.03.2019, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.2164/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Crl.MC.Nos.1936 & 2164 of 2019 3 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1941** **Crl.MC.No. 2164 of 2019** **CC 2144/2017 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, IRINJALAKUDA CRIME NO. 1412/2017 OF IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR** ## **PETITIONER/4TH ACCUSED:** **BIBIN, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. BALAN, THEPPURATH HOUSE EDATHIRINJI DESOM, EDATHIRINJI P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.K.N.RADHAKRISHNAN(THIRUVALLA)** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE OF KERALA AND THE COMPLAINANT:** **1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION THORUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ENRAKULAM-682031.** **2 STALIN, AGED 42, S/O. VARGHESE, KARINGADA HOUSE, KADUPPASSERY DESOM, KADUPPASSERY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680713 3 SASIKUMAR, AGED 44, S/O. ARVINDAN, EDAPPUZHA HOUSE, KADUPPASSERY DESOM, KADUPPASSERY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680713** Crl.MC.Nos.1936 & 2164 of 2019 4 **4 SIJU PAREKKADAN, AGED 41, S/O. THOMAS PAREKKADAN, PAREKKADAN HOUSE, KATTUNGACHIRA DESOM, IRINJALAKUDA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680713** **BY ADV.SRI.JITHIN BABU A** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.03.2019, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.1936/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Crl.MC.Nos.1936 & 2164 of 2019 5 ## **ORDER** These petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 2. The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C. No.2144 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Irinjalakuda. In the aforesaid case, they are being proceeded against for having committed offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 506 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC. 3. On 20.09.2017, the petitioners are alleged to have attacked the respondents 2 to 4 causing injuries. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the party respondents and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the victims and the offenders have arrived at a compromise and narrating the said fact, the victims have filed separate affidavits before this Court. According to the learned counsel, the records would reveal that no serious injuries were sustained by the victims. The termination of proceedings would resolve a festering private dispute between the parties and it is prayed that the proceedings be quashed. The learned counsel appearing for the party respondents would also refer to the Crl.MC.Nos.1936 & 2164 of 2019 6 affidavits and it is submitted that the parties have not only buried the hatchet, but also have decided to live peacefully in future. According to the learned counsel, no purpose would be served in dragging these proceedings. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the petitioners are not persons with criminal antecedents and that the State has no grievance in quashing the proceedings as no public interest is involved. 7. It is thus borne out from the submissions made at the bar that the parties have amicably settled their disputes on their own free will and without any kind of pressure, influence or coercion. The compromise, it is felt, is voluntary and genuine, and can be acted upon. 8. In **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab** [(2012) 10 SCC 303], the Apex Court has held 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. This view was reiterated in **Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab** [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and **Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another** [(2014) 9 SCC 653] **.** Crl.MC.Nos.1936 & 2164 of 2019 7 9. Having considered the submissions advanced and on perusing the records, it appears that the offences are entirely personal in nature and do not affect public peace or tranquility. The injuries allegedly inflicted by the petitioners cannot be said to be grave and serious having ingredients of extreme mental depravity. 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. In the result, these petitions are allowed. Annexure-II final report and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.C. No.2144 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Irinjalakuda are quashed. ## **Sd/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE** IAP Crl.MC.Nos.1936 & 2164 of 2019 8 ## **APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 1936/2019** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE I** **A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR CRIME NO.1412 OF 2017 DATED 22/9/2017 OF THE IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE II A TRUE COY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.1412 OF 2017 FILED ON 24/9/2017 OF THE IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXUREM III AN AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 5/3/2019 REGARDING SETTLEMENT.** **ANNEXURE IV AN AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 5/3/2019 REGARDING SETTLEMENT.** **ANNEXURE V AN AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 5/3/2019 REGARDING SETTLEMENT.** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:** NIL ## **APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 2164/2019** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE - I A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR CRIME NO.1412/2017 DATED 22/09/2017 OF THE INRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE - II A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 1412/2017 FILED ON 24/09/2017 OF THE IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE - III A TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 05/03/2019 REGARDING SETTLEMENT.** **ANNEXURE-IV A TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 05/03/2019 REGARDING SETTLEMENT.** **ANNEXURE - V A TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 05/03/2019 REGARDING SETTLEMENT.** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL**