High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeFIR and all further proceedings quashed.
K.S. Justin Stanley v. State of Kerala; Jayakumar v. State of Kerala
Case / Petition Number:CRL.M.C. 146 of 2022; CRL.M.C. 1930 of 2022
Neutral Citation:/
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- K. Babu
- Judgment Date
- 2023-02-10
- Court Decision / Holding
- FIR No.1830/2021 and all further proceedings stand quashed; Crl.M.C Nos. 146/2022 and 1930/2022 are allowed.
- Final Disposition
- FIR and all further proceedings quashed.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- K.S. Justin Stanley
- Jayakumar
Respondents
- State of Kerala, represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
- Roshni G.S., d/o Girija Devi, residing at Sarovaram, Kulappada, Aryanad, Thiruvananthapuram-695542 by Advocates M.R.Anandakuttan, M.A.Zohra, Mahesh Anandakuttan, Shreeji R. Nair, Additional Director General of Prosecution (AG-11), Additional State Public Prosecutor (AG-28), G. Sudheer, Public Prosecutor
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • M.P.Prakash
- • S.Rajeev
- • M.S.Aneer
- • V.Vinay Sarath K.P.
Counsels for Respondents
- • M.R.Anandakuttan
- • M.A.Zohra
- • Mahesh Anandakuttan
- • Shreeji R. Nair
- • Additional Director General of Prosecution (AG-11)
- • Additional State Public Prosecutor (AG-28)
- • G. Sudheer, Public Prosecutor
Case Synopsis & Summary
This is a combined criminal miscellaneous petition under Cr.P.C. 482 seeking quashing of FIR No.1830/2021 registered at Vidura Police Station, initially under IPC 354A(1)(ii) and later amended to 354B read with 34 IPC. The petitioners, accused in Crime No.1830/2021, contend that they have amicably settled the dispute with the defacto complainant (respondent No.2), who, with assistance of counsel, appeared and stated she does not intend to proceed and has filed an affidavit to that effect. The Respondent No.2’s statements, as placed before the Court, corroborate the settlement, and the Public Prosecutor on instructions confirmed that the victim’s statement supports the amicable resolution. The High Court notes the dispute is purely personal, with no public interest compromised and the offences are not of a serious or heinous nature; moreover, the offences are not categorised as those prohibited for compounding under law. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab, and Lakshmi Narayan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court accepts that a High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. to quash non-compoundable offences where settlement exists to secure ends of justice and prevent abuse of process. Consequently, the petitions are allowed and FIR No.1830/2021 and all proceedings are quashed. The matter is brought to an end by the order of the single judge.
Provisions of Law Cited
Section 354A(1)(ii) IPCSection 354B IPC read with Section 34 IPCSection 34 IPCSection 482 Cr.P.C.Section 320 Cr.P.C.
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Ends of justice
- Prevention of abuse of the process of the court
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners submitted that the dispute arising from Crime No.1830/2021 is purely personal, and the defacto complainant has settled the matter amicably. The affidavit from the respondent confirms she does not wish to pursue the case. Since the settlement is voluntary and fair, and the offence is not of a serious nature, quashing is warranted under established Supreme Court precedents allowing quashing in the interest of ends of justice even for non‑compoundable offences where a settlement exists.
Contentions of Respondents
Respondent No.2 appeared with counsel and stated she has settled the dispute and does not intend to proceed; the Public Prosecutor, on instructions, stated the victim’s statement corroborates settlement. The State does not oppose the settlement beyond enabling the court to exercise its discretion under Cr.P.C. 482 to prevent abuse of process and to ensure ends of justice, given the personal nature of the dispute and absence of public interest involvement.
Cited Precedents (3)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gian Singh v. State of Punjab | 2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC) | Positive | Cited to support the proposition that High Courts can quash proceedings under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. in cases involving amicable settlements in non-compoundable offences when ends of justice require. |
| Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others | (2014) 6 SCC 466 | Positive | Used to reinforce the same ends-of-justice rationale for quashing on settlement despite non-compoundability. |
| State of Madhya Pradesh v. Lakshmi Narayan and Others | (2019) 5 SCC 688 | Positive | Affirms that quashing may be appropriate in settlement circumstances to prevent abuse of process and ensure ends of justice. |
Diagnostic Tool
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 K.S. Justin Stanley v. State of Kerala; Jayakumar v. State of Kerala 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 K. BABU**
**FRIDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 21ST MAGHA, 1944**
**CRL.MC NO. 146 OF 2022**
**(CRIME NO.1830/2021 OF VIDURA POLICE STATION)**
## **PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:**
K.S.JUSTIN STANLEY, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. STANLEY RAJ, AGED 49 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT DEEPA NIVAS, VNRA 20, CHERUKULAM ROAD, PALLURUTHY, ERNAKULAM 682 006, WORKING AS DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, SOCIAL FORESTRY (EXTENSION), EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM 682 024. BY ADV M.P.PRAKASH
## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:**
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2 ROSHNI G.S, D/O. GIRIJA DEVI, RESIDING AT SAROVARAM, KULAPPADA, P.O., ARYANAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 542 BY ADVS. M.R.ANANDAKUTTAN M.A.ZOHRA(K/441/1984) MAHESH ANANDAKUTTAN(K/1234/2004) SHREEJI R. NAIR(K/1143-D/2013) ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION(AG-11) ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(AG-28) G.SUDHEER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.02.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.1930/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.146, 1930 of 2022
2
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU**
**FRIDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 21ST MAGHA, 1944**
**CRL.MC NO. 1930 OF 2022**
**(CRIME NO.1830/2021 OF VIDURA POLICE STATION)**
## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:**
JAYAKUMAR, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O GOPALAN NADAR, JAMES COTTAGE, KOTTAMA, ARAYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695122 BY ADVS. S.RAJEEV M.S.ANEER V.VINAY SARATH K.P.
## **RESPONDENTS:**
1 STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 X AGED 34 YEARS X (VICTIM ANONYMITY), PIN - 695543 BY ADVS. ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION(AG-11) ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(AG-28) G.SUDHEER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.02.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.146/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.146, 1930 of 2022
3
## K.BABU, J .
-------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.146 & 1930 of 2022
--------------------------------------Dated this the 10[th] day of February, 2023
## COMMON ORDER
The petitioners are accused in Crime No.1830/2021 of Vidura Police Station. The petitioner in Crl.M.C No.146/2022 is accused No.1. The petitioner in Crl.M.C No.1930/2022 is accused No.2. Originally, the crime was registered alleging offence punishable under Section 354A(1)(ii) of IPC.
2. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a report before the jurisdictional Magistrate deleting the penal provision 354(A)(1)(ii) of IPC and incorporating offence under Section 354B read with Section 34 of IPC.
3. The petitioners prayed for quashing the FIR No.1830/2021 of Vidura Police Station, on the ground that they have arrived at a settlement in respective of the subject matter with the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant is respondent No.2 in both the petitions.
4. In Crl.M.C No.1930/2022, respondent No.2 appeared
through Advocate Smt.M.Hemalatha and in Crl.M.C No.146/2022
Crl.M.C.No.146, 1930 of 2022
4
respondent No.2 appeared through Advocate Sri.M.R.Anandakuttan.
5. An affidavit has been sworn to by respondent No.2, stating that she has settled the matter with the petitioners.
6. Respondent No.2 appeared in person and submitted that she is not intending to proceed with the matter against the petitioners in the criminal proceedings. She further submitted that she has filed affidavit stating that the dispute between herself and the petitioners has been settled.
## 7. Heard both sides.
8. I have perused the averments in the petition and the affidavit sworn to by respondent No.2.
9. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the Investigating Officer had taken the statement of the victim, wherein also she reported that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled.
10. The material placed before the Court shows that the entire dispute between the parties, which arose from this crime has been amicably settled and the defacto complainant has decided not to proceed further. The settlement between the parties is found to
Crl.M.C.No.146, 1930 of 2022
5
be voluntary and fair. The settlement satisfies the conscience of the Court.
11. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)] , Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and Others [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Lakshmi Narayan and Others [(2019) 5 SCC 688] the Apex Court held that the High Court, invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C., can quash criminal proceedings in relation to non-compoundable offences, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of Cr.P.C., if it is warranted in the given facts and circumstances of the case, to ensure ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.
12. In the instant case, the dispute is purely personal in nature. There is nothing to show that public interest will be compromised by quashing the proceedings. The offence in question does not fall within the category of serious offences or heinous offences.
13. The offence in the present case does not fall within the category of offences prohibited for granting permission to
Crl.M.C.No.146, 1930 of 2022
6
compromise in terms of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in Gian Singh (supra), Narinder Singh (supra) and Lakshmi Narayan (supra).
14. This Court is of the view that no purpose will be served in
proceeding with the matter further.
Resultantly, the Crl.M.Cs are allowed. The FIR in Crime No.1830/2022 of Vidura Police Station and all further proceedings
stand hereby quashed.
Sd/-
K.BABU, JUDGE
KAS
Crl.M.C.No.146, 1930 of 2022
7
## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 146/2022**
## PETITIONER ANNEXURES
|Annexure|1|A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED|
|---|---|---|
|||28.09.2020 OF THE ADDITIONAL PCCF (V&|
|||FI).|
|Annexure|2|A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED|
|||23.10.2020 OF THE ADDITIONAL PCCF|
|||(V&FI).|
|Annexure|2(a)|A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED|
|||27.10.2020 OF THE ADDITIONAL PCCF|
|||(V&FI).|
|Annexure|2(b)|A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED|
|||27.10.2020 OF THE ADDITIONAL PCCF|
|||(V&FI).|
|Annexure|3|A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED|
|||28.10.2020 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE|
|||FOREST CONSERVATOR (I&E).|
|Annexure|4|A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED|
|||04.11.2020 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE|
|||FOREST CONSERVATOR (I&E).|
|Annexure|5|A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED|
|||09.11.2020 OF THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER|
|||TO THE PETITIONER.|
|Annexure|6|A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED|
|||12.11.2020 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE|
|||PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.|
|Annexure|7|A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED|
|||12.11.2020 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE|
|||MLA.|
|Annexure|7(a)|A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED|
|||12.11.2020 OF THE MLA WITH THE|
|||ENDORSEMENT OF THE MINISTER.|
|Annexure|8|A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED|
|||12.11.2020 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE|
|||CHAIRPERSON, ICC.|
|Annexure|9|A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED|
|||17.11.2020 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE|
|||HON'BLE MINISTER.|
|Annexure|10|A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED|
|||17.11.2020 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE|
|||HEAD OF FOREST FORCES.|
|Annexure|11|A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED|
|||19.11.2020 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE|
Crl.M.C.No.146, 1930 of 2022
8
||||FOREST CONSERVATOR (I&E).|
|---|---|---|---|
|Annexure|12||A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED|
||||24.11.2020 OF THE ADDITIONAL PCCF|
||||(V&FI).|
|Annexure|13||A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED|
||||24.11.2020 OF THE GOVERNMENT TO THE|
||||ADDL. PCCF (A).|
|Annexure|14||A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED|
||||07.12.2020 OF THE PCCF & HOFF TO THE|
||||PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.|
|Annexure|15||A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED|
||||28.05.2021 OF THE DFO TO THE FOREST|
||||CONSEVATOR (I&E).|
|Annexure|16||A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED|
||||13.07.2021 OF THE CONSERVATOR (I&E) TO|
||||THE PCCF.|
|Annexure|17||A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED|
||||10.08.2021 OF THE FOREST CONSERVATOR|
||||(HRD) TO THE PETITIONER.|
|Annexure|18||A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 17.10.2021|
||||IN CRIME NO. 1830/2021 OF THE VIDURA|
||||POLICE STATION.|
|Annexure|19|SERIES|TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS REPORTS.|
Crl.M.C.No.146, 1930 of 2022
9
## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1930/2022**
## PETITIONER ANNEXURES
|Annexure|1|SERIES|A COPY OF THE COMPLAINTS RECEIVED|
|---|---|---|---|
||||THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE|
||||DEFACTO COMPLAINANT.|
|Annexure|2||A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR ALONG WITH|
||||FIS IN CRIME NO.1830/2021 OF VIDURA|
||||POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM|
||||DATED 14.10.2021.|
|Annexure|3||A COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE|
||||FOREST CONSERVATOR, KOTTAYAM BEFORE THE|
||||PRINCIPAL CHIEF FOREST CONSERVATOR,|
||||THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 13.07.2021.|
|Annexure|4||COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER OF THE|
||||DEFACTO COMPLAINANT DATED 23.07.2021.|
|Annexure|5||A COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SIGNED BY THE|
||||PETITIONER AND HIS TEAM DATED|
||||14.12.2020.|
|Annexure|6||A COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 07.12.2020|
||||SUBMITTED BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF|
||||CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND HEAD OF|
||||FOREST FORCE.|