Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgePetition allowed; proceedings quashed

Kiran S/o Johnson, Ansar, Abhil Hassan, Yedhu Krishnan v. State of Kerala and Sheeja, Vinod, Viswan

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C. No. 7771 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date
2016-12-13
Court Decision / Holding
The petition is allowed; the High Court quashed CC 1130/2015 and all proceedings associated with it under Section 482 CrPC.
Final Disposition
Petition allowed; proceedings quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Kiran S/o Johnson
  • Ansar
  • Abhil Hassan
  • Yedhu Krishnan

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor
  • Sheeja
  • Vinod
  • Viswan

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Adv. Sri. K.T. Saju

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Adv. SMT. Siji Balakrishnan (for R2–R4)
  • • Public Prosecutor Sri. M.R. Dhanil (for State)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court judgment, delivered by Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V, deals with a criminal miscellaneous case (Crl.M.C. No. 7771 of 2016) seeking to quash proceedings in CC 1130/2015 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakkanad, Ernakulam. The four petitioners (accused Nos. 1–4) were charged under IPC sections 323, 324, and 341 read with 34 in connection with an incident on 17 July 2012 around 6:30 PM, where they allegedly restrained and assaulted respondents 2–4. The respondents, including the State and private respondents Sheeja, Vinod and Viswan, filed affidavits (Annexures A2–A4) asserting that the disputes have been resolved. The petitioners urged that, in light of the settlement, the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC permit quashing of the pending proceedings. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations, noting that Section 482 powers are not invariably warranted, though no separate cases were reported against the petitioners. The Court relied on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014), with reference to Rajesh Kamath J. v. Mohana Kurup (2016), to emphasize that quashing is permissible where the offences are not grave and where parties have settled, especially in matters with civil flavour. Concluding that continued proceedings would be oppressive and that conviction is unlikely, the Court allowed the petition, quashing CC 1130/2015 and all related proceedings, with the order citing annexures and affidavits.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 CrPCSections 323, 324, 341 read with 34 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC can be based on settlements between private parties (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab)
  • Power to quash extends to cases with an overwhelming and predominantly civil flavour where disputes have been settled (Gian Singh; Narinder Singh guidelines)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that the disputes between them and the respondents have been resolved through a settlement. They urged that the High Court’s inherent power under Section 482 CrPC allows quashing of the pending proceedings in light of the settlement, especially in cases with civil flavour where the parties have mutually resolved their entire dispute.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents supported the settlement evidenced by affidavits (Annexures A2–A4). The State’s counsel reserved his position, cautioning that invocation of 482 powers is not always warranted, but did not oppose the possibility of quashing given the lack of grave offences and the parties’ settlement.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another2012 (10) SCC 303PositiveCited to support the proposition that High Courts may quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC on the basis of settlement, even beyond the narrow ambit of Section 320 CrPC, particularly in cases with civil flavour.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab2014 (6) SCC 466PositiveCited for guidelines on exercise of 482 powers in settlements, reinforcing the approach taken in Gian Singh.
Rajesh Kamath J. and Others v. Mohana Kurup and OthersAIR 2016 SC 2452PositiveCited as recent Supreme Court guidance supporting quashing in appropriate settlements with civil flavour and compromises.

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 S/o Johnson, Ansar, Abhil Hassan, Yedhu Krishnan v. State of Kerala and Sheeja, Vinod, Viswan 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 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1938** ## **Crl.MC.No. 7771 of 2016 () ---------------------------** **AGAINST CC 1130/2015 of JFCM, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM CRIME NO. 1147/2012 OF THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:** ## **---------------------** **1. KIRAN S/O.JOHNSON, AGED 24 YEARS, AATTUMALIL HOUSE, VKC PO, THEVAKKAL, THRIKKAKARA NORTH, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682021.** ## **2. ANSAR** **S/O.SAITHALI BAVA, AGED 29 YEARS, THALIYANTHODIYIL, CHERPALACHERI, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD, PIN-679 503.** ## **3. ABHIL HASSAN** **S/O.PUSHPA HASSAN, AGED 24 YEARS, SIVAGANGA, VKC POST, THEVAKKAL, THRIKKAKARA NORTH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682021.** **4. YEDHU KRISHNAN S/O.MURALIDHARAN, AGED 23 YEARS, SARASWTHI BHAVAN, VKC POST, THEVAKKAL, THRIKKAKARA NORTH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682021.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.K.T.SAJU** **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/INJURED: ------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.** **2. SHEEJA** **W/O.VINOD, AGED 34 YEARS, NELLIKKAL HOUSE, VKC POST, THEVAKKAL, THRIKKAKARA NORTH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682021.** **3. VINOD** **S/O.VELAYUDHAN, AGED 43 YEARS, NELLIKKAL HOUSE, VKC POST, THEVAKKAL, THRIKKAKARA NORTH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682021.** ## **4. VISWAN** **S/O.MADHAVAN, AGED 40 YEARS, ELLIKKAMOOLAYIL, VKC POST, THEVAKKAL, THRIKKAKARA NORTH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682021.** **R2,R3,R4 BY ADV. SMT.SIJI BALAKRISHNAN BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.R.DHANIL** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON** **13-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **Crl.MC.No. 7771 of 2016 ()** ## **---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES** **-----------------------** **ANNEXURE A1 : THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT/CHARGE IN CC NO. 1130/2015 ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM.** **ANNEXURE A2 : AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **ANNEXURE A3 : AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **ANNEXURE A4 : AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES** **-----------------------** ## **NIL** **/TRUE COPY/** **VPS PS TO JUDGE** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.7771 of 2016 ----------------------------------------Dated this the 13[th] day of December, 2016** ## **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 4 in C.C. No.1130 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakkanad, Ernakulam. In the aforesaid case, they stand indicted under sections 323, 324, 341 read with 34 of the IPC. - 3.The prosecution allegation is that on 17.7.2012 at about - 6.30 pm, the petitioners herein wrongfully restrained the respondents 2 to 4 and thereafter attacked them with sticks causing injuries. Crl.M.C.7771/2016 2 - 4.Heard the rival submissions. - 5.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4 referring to Annexure- A2 to A4 affidavits sworn to by them submits that the disputes have been resolved. - 6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, this Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings. - 7.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 petitioner. - 8.In **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another** [2012 - (10)SCC 303], the Apex Court has crystalised the position in respect of the powers vested in the High Court under Crl.M.C.7771/2016 3 S.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to quash criminal proceedings. It was held that the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is not limited to quashing proceedings within the ambit and scope of Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The three - Judge Bench in the above case, clearly expounded, that quashing of criminal proceedings under S.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, could also be based on settlements between private parties, and could also on a compromise between the offender and the victim. Only that, the above power did not extend to crimes against the society. It is also relevant to mention, that the jurisdiction vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for quashing criminal proceedings, was held to be exercisable in criminal cases having an overwhelming and predominantly civil flavour, particularly offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership, or such like transactions. In Crl.M.C.7771/2016 4 all such cases, the parties should have resolved their entire dispute by themselves, mutually. Further, guidelines were issued by the Apex Court in **Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab** [2014 (6) SCC 466] and recently in **Rajesh Kamath J. and Others v. Mohana Kurup and Others** [AIR 2016 SC 2452]. 9.I have considered the rival submissions and I have gone through the materials on record. The offence committed by the petitioner 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. More over, when the party respondents have settled the matter, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and the continuation of the criminal case against the petitioner would be a futile exercise. It would also put the petitioner and the 2[nd] respondent to great oppression and prejudice. 10.Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of Crl.M.C.7771/2016 5 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-AI final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.C. No.1130 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakkanad, Ernakulam are quashed. **Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE** vps