Lijo and Thomas v. State of Kerala and Naijo

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. T. Ravikumar
Judgment Date: 2013-04-12
Court Decision / Holding: Crl.M.C. allowed. Annexure-A1 FIR and Annexure-A2 final report in Crime No.53/2013 of Chalakkudy Police Station and all further proceedings in CP No.26/2013 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chalakudy are quashed.
Final Disposition: Quashed; FIR, final report and proceedings in CP No.26/2013 quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Lijo
Thomas

Respondents

State of Kerala
Naijo

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. K.B. Gangesh

Counsels for Respondents

• SMT. ATHIRA A. MENON
• Public Prosecutor SMT. S. HYMA

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case (Crl.M.C. No.1336 of 2013) filed by Lijo and Thomas, brothers of the defacto complainant, seeking to quash FIR No.53/2013 of Chalakudy Police Station and the final report in Crime 53/2013 and the proceedings in C.P.26/2013 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chalakudy. The petition concerns alleged offences under sections 324, 326 and 308 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, arising from an incident on 30.12.2012 involving injuries to the defacto complainant. The petition hinges on a settlement between the petitioners and the defacto complainant, evidenced by Annexure-A3 affidavit, where the latter states the lis has been settled and expresses no objection to quashing the final report and further proceedings. After hearing the parties and the Public Prosecutor, the Court observed that the accused are the brother and father of the defacto complainant and that the dispute is private in nature; amicable settlement makes continued prosecution unlikely to succeed. Relying on Supreme Court rulings in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, and Dimpey Gujral v. UT Chandigarh, the Court held that quashing is appropriate in the circumstances to avoid futile litigation. Consequently, the Crl.M.C was allowed and FIR, final report, and proceedings in CP No.26/2013 were quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

IPC sections 324, 326 and 308 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Principle of settlement/amicable resolution of disputes between private individuals; court may quash criminal proceedings in the interest of justice in light of Supreme Court decisions (e.g., B.S. Joshi, Gian Singh, Dimpey Gujral).

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submitted that the disputes leading to the registration of crime No.53/2013 have been settled amicably, as reflected in Annexure-A3 affidavit by the second respondent. Given the familial relationship and the private nature of the matter, continuation of proceedings would be wasteful and a miscarriage of justice. They urged quashment of the FIR and final report and dismissal of CP No.26/2013.

Contentions of Respondents

The second respondent supported settlement and expressed no objection to quashing, as evidenced by Annexure-A3, and the public prosecutor represented that the matter had been settled privately; the aim was to uphold justice while recognizing the private nature of the dispute.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana	2003 (2) KLT 1062 (SC)	Positive	Cited as authority supporting exercise of the court's inherent power to quash criminal proceedings in the interests of justice where a settlement exists and the dispute is private.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)	Positive	Cited to reinforce that quashing is permissible where there is a settlement and it serves the interest of justice, even in cases involving non-compoundable or serious offences, when appropriate.
Dimpey Gujral and Others v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others	2013 (1) KLD 66 (SC)	Positive	Cited as further support for quashing based on amicable settlement and private nature of the dispute.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2013/22ND CHAITHRA 1935 Crl.MC.No. 1336 of 2013 () --------------------------CP.26/2013 of J.M.F.C., CHALAKUDY CRIME NO. 53/2013 OF CHALAKKUDY POLICE STATION, TRISSUR PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: --------------------------- 1.LIJO, AGED 35 YEARS S/O.THOMAS, MECHERY HOUSE, KOTTARAM ROAD ELINJIPRA VILLAGE, ELINJIPRA. - 2.THOMAS, AGED 69 YEARS S/O.DEVASSYUKUTTY, -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.K.B.GANGESH RESPONDENTS/ STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT(S): -------------------------------------------------------- - 1.STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031. - 2.NAIJO, AGED 38 YEARS S/O.THOMAS, MECHERY HOUSE, KOTTARAM ROAD ELINIPRA VILLAGE, ELINJIPRA-680 721. R2 BY ADV. SMT.ATHIRA A.MENON R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-04-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.M.C.NO.1336/2013 ## APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A1:CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.53/2013 OF CHALAKKUDY POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2:TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.53/2013 OF CHALAKKUDY POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A3:AFFIDAVIT DATED 18.3.2013 EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ========================== CRL.M.C. No.1336 OF 2013 ==========================** Dated this the 12[th] day of April, 2013 ## **ORDER** Petitioners are accused in crime No.53 of 2013 of Chalakkudy Police Station registered alleging commission of offences under sections 324, 326 and 308 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Annexure-A2 is the final report laid in that crime. The committal proceedings against the petitioners are now pending before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chalakkudy as C.P.No.26 of 2013. Petitioners are respectively the brother and father of the defacto complainant. The gist of the allegations is that on 30.12.2012 at about 11 p.m., the petitioners/accused unleashed attack on the second respondent with iron rod and wooden log in furtherance their common intention to kill him and caused injuries on his head and both hands. This petition is filed seeking quashment of Annexure-A1 FIR and Annexure-A2 final report laid in the aforesaid crime and all **Crl.M.C.1336/13** 2 further proceedings pursuant thereto in C.P.No.26 of 2013 pending before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chalakudy on the strength of the settlement arrived at between the petitioners and the second respondent as is obvious from Annexure- A3 affidavit sworn in by the second respondent, in this petition. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor. As already noticed hereinbefore, the petitioners are none other than the brother and father of the defacto complainant. It is stated in Annexure-A3 affidavit sworn in by the second respondent that the entire lis that led to the registration of the aforesaid crime has been settled with his brother and father, the petitioners in this petition. In such circumstances, he did not wish to prosecute them, any further. It is also stated therein that in view of the said settlement arrived at between them, he got no objection in quashing Annexure-A2 final report and all further proceedings pursuant thereto pending against the petitioners in C.P.No.26 of 2013 on the files of the Court of Judicial First Class **Crl.M.C.1336/13** 3 Magistrate, Chalakudy. Pursuant to order dated 10.4.2013 passed by this Court, the second respondent appeared in person. The learned counsel for the second respondent identified him as the second respondent. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the second respondent as also Annexure-A3 affidavit sworn in by the second respondent would reveal that the entire disputes that led to the registration of the aforesaid crime have been settled amicably. Considering the relationship between the petitioners and the second respondent and that they have amicably settled the issues that led to the registration of the aforesaid crime, I do not think that any fruitful purpose could be served by continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. True that the allegations against the petitioners is one of commission of offence under sections 324, 326 and 308 IPC. Considering the nature of the injuries and Annexure-A3 affidavit sworn in by the second respondent, it is evident that the case involved is purely personal and private in nature and when the accused are none other than the brother and father of the defacto complainant and when they settled the matter amicably, it is only appropriate for this Court to act upon the **Crl.M.C.1336/13** 4 settlement and to terminate the proceedings against the petitioners, in the interest of justice and in the light of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003 (2) KLT 1062** **(SC)), Gian Singh v. State of Punjab** [ **2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)** and **Dimpey Gujral and Others v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others (2013 (1) KLD 66 (SC)).** The position now obtained in this case based on the submissions made on behalf of the second respondent together with Annexure-A3 would reveal that the chance for a successful prosecution of the petitioners is very remote and bleak and moreover, continuation of criminal proceedings based on Annexure-A2 final report would be a wasteful exercise. In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure- A1 FIR and Annexure-A2 final report laid in crime No.53 of 2013 of Chalakkudy Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant thereto in C.P.No.26 of 2013 pending before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chalakudy are hereby quashed. ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)** **spc/** **Crl.M.C.1336/13** 5 **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **Crl.M.C.1336/13** 6 **JUDGMENT September, 2010**