High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-05-23Quashed

Manikandan; Akhil; Shahid; Assain Pallimukku v. State of Kerala; Manikandan (de facto complainant) and Mukundan

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No. 2748 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
Judgment Date: 2016-05-23
Court Decision / Holding: Consequently, the Annexure 2 final report and all further proceedings in C.C. No. 154 of 2014 before the Judicial Magistrate, I Class - II, Kollam stand quashed.
Final Disposition: Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Manikandan
Akhil
Shahid
Assain Pallimukku

Respondents

State of Kerala through the Sub-Inspector Kollam East Police Station, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Manikandan (Sreenivasanachari)
Mukundan (S/O. Manikandan)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri K. Siju
• Smt. Seetha

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor Sri A. Muhammed Rafi
• Sri A. Muhammed Raffi

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case under section 482 CrPC, concerning quashing of FIR No. 139/2014 of Kollam East Police Station, registered for offences under sections 323 and 324 read with section 34 IPC, and the subsequent proceedings in C.C. No. 154 of 2014. The four petitioners—Manikandan, Akhil, Shahid and Assain Pallimukku—allege that the disputes between them and the second respondent (the de facto complainant) and third respondent (the injured) have been amicably settled, and seek quashing in the larger interest of justice and peace. The second respondent and the third respondent appear through counsel and swear affidavits confirming the settlement and their lack of any current grievance, supporting withdrawal of prosecution. The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, states it has no objection, provided the settlement is genuine and voluntary. The court recalls Supreme Court jurisprudence recognizing that the inherent power to quash criminal proceedings is wide and should be exercised to secure ends of justice and prevent abuse of process, especially where disputes are private and settled. It cites Gian Singh, Narinder Singh and Yogendra Yadav to underscore that amicable settlements can justify quashing where continuing the case would be oppressive and contrary to public interest. The High Court ultimately holds that the compromise is voluntary and genuine, and accordingly quashes the final report and all further proceedings in CC 154/2014, Kollam.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of CrPCSections 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ends of justice
Abuse of process of law

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners seek quashing of the FIR and all proceedings on the basis of an amicable settlement reached between the parties. They contend that the compromise, made freely and without coercion, serves the interests of peace and community welfare, and that continued prosecution would be oppressive given the private nature of the dispute. They rely on established jurisprudence recognizing that quashing is permissible in appropriate cases where settlement brings about ends of justice.

Contentions of Respondents

The State has no objection to quashing in light of the amicable settlement. The de facto complainant and the injured party have sworn affidavits stating they do not wish to pursue the prosecution and that their grievances no longer exist, which the State regards as a valid basis to withdraw the case and discontinue proceedings.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	(2012) 10 SCC 303	Positive	Cited as the leading precedent permitting quashing of criminal proceedings in appropriate cases where there is amicable settlement between victim and offender, subject to ends of justice and not undermining public interest.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	(2014) 6 SCC 466	Positive	Reiterates the permissibility of quashing upon a genuine compromise, reinforcing Gian Singh's principle.
Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another	(2014) 9 SCC 653	Positive	Further endorsement of settling criminal disputes where appropriate to prevent oppression and ensure justice.

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 Manikandan; Akhil; Shahid; Assain Pallimukku v. State of Kerala; Manikandan (de facto complainant) and Mukundan 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** **MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2016/2ND JYAISHTA, 1938** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2748 of 2016** ## **----------------------------------** **CC.154/2014 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, KOLLAM CRIME NO. 139/2014 OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM** **-------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:** - **--------------------------------------** **1. MANIKANDAN, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. VASUDEVAN, SREEKRISHNA BHAVANAM, GURUDEVA NAGAR-100, PUNTHALATHAZHAM, AYATHIL, VADAKKEVILA, KOLLAM.** **2. AKHIL, S/O. ANIRUNDHAN, AGED 27 YEARS, KEECHAPPALLITHODIYIL, PANTHRANDUMURI NAGAR-155, KAYYALAKKAL, ERAVIPURAM P.O., KOLLAM.** **3. SHAHID, S/O.L.M. BADHUSHA, AGED 31 YEARS, WHITE HOUSE, SANTHI NAGAR, MANAKKADU, VADAKKEVILA P.O., KOLLAM.** **4. ASSAIN @ ASSAIN PALLIMUKKU, S/O. AHAMMED KUNJU, AGED 29 YEARS, THALMATHU MANZIL, KAYYALAKKAL, ERAVIPURAM, KOLLAM.** **BY ADVS.SRI.K.SIJU SMT.S.SEETHA** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/DEFACTO COMPLAINT AND STATE:** **----------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OFPOLICE, KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **2. MANIKANDAN,** - **S/O. SREENIVASANACHARI, AGED 45 YEARS, MOORTHI BHAVAN, KALLUVIAL PADINJATTATHIL, KUREEPUZHA CHERI, THRIKKADAVOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM.** **.....2/-** **PJ** **..2..** **Crl.MC.No. 2748 of 2016** **----------------------------------** ## **3. MUKUNDAN,** **S/O. MANIKANDAN, AGED 21 YEARS, MOORTHI BHAVAN, KALLUVILA PADINJATTATHIL, KUREEPUZHA CHERI, THRIKKADAVOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.A.MUHAMMED RAFI R2,3 BY ADV. SRI.A.MUHAMMED RAFFI** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **PJ** **Crl.MC.No. 2748 of 2016** **----------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES** **----------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE 1: COPY OF FIR WITH FIS IN CRIME NO.139/2014 OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION** **ANNEXURE 2: COPY OF FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED IN CRIME NO.139/14** **ANNEXURE 3: COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE R2 REGARDING SETTLEMENT DATED 30/7/15** **ANNEXURE 4: COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE R3 REGARDING SETTLEMENT DATED 30/7/15.** ## **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES** **------------------------------------------** **NIL.** **/ TRUE COPY/** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **PJ** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 2748 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 23[rd] May, 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **ORDER** This application is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) seeking invocation of powers of this Court to quash pending Criminal Proceedings. 2. Crime No.139 of 2014 of Kollam East Police Station was registered at the instance of second respondent herein against the petitioners herein under sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 3. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the final police report before the jurisdictional Magistrate and case is now pending trial before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kollam as C.C.No.154 of 2014. During the pendency of the criminal case, parties have decided to resolve the disputes and to live in harmony. Having compromised the matter, the petitioners/accused Crl.M.C. No.2748 of 2016 -2- have preferred the present petition, to quash the impugned FIR and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Section 482 of the Code 4. The second respondent/ _defacto_ complainant has entered appearance through counsel and it is submitted that the disputes have been amicably settled with the avowed objective to maintain peace and harmony between the parties. The third respondent is the injured and both second and third respondents have sworn to separate affidavits before court wherein it has been emphatically stated that their grievance do not exist anymore and also that they do not intend to pursue the prosecution proceedings against the petitioners herein. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor was directed to obtain instructions from the Investigating officer and it is submitted that the State has no objection in acting on Annexures 3 and 4 as it would promote peace and harmony. It is also submitted that the petitioners are not persons with any criminal antecedents. Crl.M.C. No.2748 of 2016 -3- 6. It is thus borne out from the submissions made at the bar that the parties have amicably settled their disputes with their free will and without any kind of pressure, influence or coercion. The compromise, it is felt, is voluntarily and genuine and can be acted upon. The law with regard to the settlement of criminal disputes on the strength of an amicable resolution of the disputes between the parties is no more res integra. ## 7. **In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC** **303),** Apex Court has laid down 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 .** 8. It was held that the inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such Crl.M.C. No.2748 of 2016 -4- power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. It was held that certain categories of cases involving heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute as those offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. But those cases where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and those in which the parties have resolved their entire dispute could fittingly be quashed by this court taking into account the compromise between the offender and victim. In such cases the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused and the _de facto_ complainant to great oppression and prejudice 9. After having anxiously considered the submissions it is felt that it would be unfair and contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding. It would only tantamount to abuse of process of law to subject the Crl.M.C. No.2748 of 2016 -5- parties to the ordeal of a protracted criminal proceeding despite the settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer. Settlement will augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony. Consequently, the Annexure 2 final report and all further proceedings in C.C.No. 154 of 2014 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of the I Class - II , Kollam shall stand quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE** kp/-23.5.16