Manu, Sumesh and Mukesh v. State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Alexander Thomas
Judgment Date: 2015-07-30
Court Decision / Holding: The impugned Anx-B final report in Crime No. 336/2014 (pending as CP No. 15/2015) and the impugned Anx-E final report in Crime No. 335/2014 stand quashed under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C., with the further proceedings arising therefrom also quashed; the petitions are disposed of accordingly.
Final Disposition: Crl.M.Cs disposed; quashing of the final reports and all related proceedings under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Manu s/o Murukan
Sumesh s/o Andavan
Mukesh s/o Rajan

Respondents

State of Kerala, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Vimod s/o Mani
Linesh s/o Ramachandran
Rahul s/o Radhakrishnan
Jinu s/o Raghavan
Manoj s/o Veluswami

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri K. Anand

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor Sri Dhanesh Mathew Manjooran
• Sri N. Rajesh (Palakkad)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case concerns the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash two related prosecutions arising out of Hemambika Nagar Police Station, Palakkad, by settlement between accused and defacto complainant and witnesses. Petitioners Manu, Sumesh and Mukesh faced Crime No. 336/2014, and after investigation the final report reduced the number of accused; the matter is pending as CP No. 15/2015 before a Judicial First Class Magistrate. A second petition relates to Crime No. 335/2014 (the counter case) with related accused. Respondents 2–6 in the first petition and the witnesses/de facto complainants have sworn affidavits acknowledging settlement and stating no objection to quashing. The police final reports (Anx-B and Anx-E) are the subject of quashing in the two petitions. The court invokes a long line of Supreme Court authority, notably Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab, to hold that, where there is a genuine settlement and continued prosecution would be futile or a waste of court time, the High Court may quash non‑compoundable offences under its inherent powers. Accordingly, the impugned final reports in both cases and all further proceedings are quashed under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C., and the petitions are disposed of with directions to terminate proceedings.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Inherent powers under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. to quash prosecution in appropriate cases upon settlement
Settlement between accused and defacto complainant can lead to quashing even in non‑compoundable offences
Apex Court decisions Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab cited to ground quashing in settlement cases

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants contend that genuine settlement has been arrived at with the defacto complainant and witnesses; continuing the prosecution would be futile and a waste of the court's time, and invoking the inherent power under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. is warranted to quash the proceedings, following the principles laid down in Gian Singh and Narinder Singh.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents have filed affidavits reflecting settlement and no objection to quashing; they assert that the final reports were filed after investigation and that quashing would conserve judicial resources in light of the settled disputes.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 160	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that settlement can justify quashing under inherent powers when the dispute is settled.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr	2014 (6) SCC 466	Positive	Cited for the principle that settlement can lead to quashing and the need to avoid fruitless prolongation of proceedings; para 29 referenced.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** ## **THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2015/8TH SRAVANA, 1937** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3845 of 2015** ## **---------------------------** ## **CRIME NO. 336/2014 OF HEMAMBIKA NAGAR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** **..........** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:** **--------------------------------------** **1. MANU, S/O.MURUKAN, AGED 24 YEARS, KUNNATH HOUSE, SASTH COLONY, MANTHAKKAD(POST), MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** **2. SUMESH, S/O.ANDAVAN, AGED 26 YEARS, THOTTAPPURA HOUSE, AKATHETHARA (POST), PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** **3. MUKESH, S/O.RAJAN, AGED 23 YEARS, THOTTAPPURA HOUSE, AKATHETHARA (POST), PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** **----------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.682 031.** **2. VIMOD, S/O.MANI, AGED 26 YEARS, LAKSHM VEED COLONY, CHERAD, MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 005.** **3. LINESH, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 24 YEARS, PANGHICHAMPURA HOUSE, KADUKKAMKUNNU(PO), MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD - 678 005.** **--2--** **--2--** **4. RAHUL,S/O.RADHAKRISHNAN,** - **AGED 23 YEARS, MYNATTUPURA HOUSE, KADUKKAMKUNNU(POST), MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 005.** ## ***ADDL. R5 & R6 IMPLEADED** **5. JINU, S/O.RAGHAVAN, AGED 22 YEARS, KANJIRAKADAVU, MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD.** **6. MANOJ, S/O.VELUSWAMI, AGED 19 YEARS, SASTHA COLONY, MANTHAKKADU, MALAMPUZHA.** **ADDL.R5 & R6 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 24.7.2015 IN CRL.M.A.7046/2015 IN CRL.M.C.3845/2015.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN R2 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.N.RAJESH (PALAKKAD)** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-07-2015 ALONG WITH CRMC.3848/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **mbr/** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3845 of 2015** ## **----------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:** **------------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE A- CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME 336/2014 OF HEMAMBIKA NAGAR POLICE STATION DATED 11.6.14. ANNEXURE B- CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME 336/2014 OF HEMAMBIKA NAGAR POLICE STATION DATED 7.3.15. ANNEXURE C- AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2 TO 5 RESPONDENTS DATED 08.06.2015. ANNEXURE D- TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT OF VIMOD DATED 29.06.2015. ANNEXURE E- TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT OF LINESH DATED 29.06.2015. ANNEXURE F- TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT OF RAHUL DATED 29.06.2015. ANNEXURE G- TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT OF JINU DATED 29.06.2015. ANNEXURE H- TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT OF MANOJ DATED 28.06.2015.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: --------------------------------------------ANNEXURE R2(A) : A TRUE COPY OF THE ACCIDENT REGISTER CUM WOUND CERTIFICATE.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **mbr/** ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ----------------------------- Crl.M.C.Nos.3845 & 3848 Of 2015 --------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of July, 2015. ## O R D E R The prayers made in these two Crl.M.Cs filed under Sec.482 of the Cr.PC invoking the inherent powers conferred on this Court as per that provision are to quash respective impugned criminal proceedings in these cases which essentially arise out of two crimes which are said to be case and counter case and the prayer for quashment in both these cases is made on the basis of settlement arrived at between the accused persons and defacto complainant. Crl.M.C.No.3845/2015 arises out of Anx-A Crime No.336/2014 of Hemambika Nagar Police Station, Palakkad in which there are three accused, who are the petitioners in the said Crl.M.C and the contesting respondents 2 to 6 therein are the defacto complainant, injured and the charge witnesses respectively in relation to that crime. Crl.M.C.No.3848/2015 arises out of counter case viz., Crime No.335/2014 of Hemambika Nagar Police Staion, Palakkad. ::2:: Crl.M.C.Nos.3845 & 3848 Of 2015 Originally, there were 7 accused in the impugned Anx-A Crime and later, after investigation, the police submitted the impugned Anx-E final report wherein there are only 4 accused, who are the 4 petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.3848/2015. The 1[st] petitioner (Who is accused No.1 in Crime No.336/2014) in Crl.M.C.No.3845/2015 is the contesting respondent No.2 (defacto complainant in Crime No.335/2014) in Crl.M.C.No.3848/2015. Petitioners 3 & 4 in Crl.M.C.No.3848/2015 (who are accused Nos.3 & 4 in Crime No.335/2014) are contesting respondents 2 & 3 (defacto complainants in Crime No.336/2014) in Crl.M.C.No.3845/2015. It is brought on record that the contesting respondents 2 to 6 in Crl.M.C.No.3845/2015 has sworn to separate affidavits produced as Anxs-D to H in that Crl.M.C whereby they have stated that the entire disputes against the defacto complainant, injured and the charge witnesses, etc, have been fully settled and the contesting respondents have no objection in quashing the pending criminal proceedings against the petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.3845/2015. So also the contesting respondents 2 & 3 in Crl.M.C.No.3848/2015 ::3:: Crl.M.C.Nos.3845 & 3848 Of 2015 have sworn to separate affidavits as Anxs-C & D therein stating the same aspects regarding settlement and also stated that they have no objection in quashing the impugned criminal proceedings. In Crl.M.C.No.3845/2015, the police after investigation has submitted impugned Anx-B final report in Crime No.336/2014 and the case is now pending as C.P.No.15/2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Palakkad. So also, in Crl.M.C.No.3848/2015, the police after investigation has submitted the impugned Anx-E final report in the impugned Anx-A Crime No.335/2014. It is these proceedings that are sought to be quashed on the ground of settlement. 2. In a catena of decisions, the Apex Court has held that, in appropriate cases involving even non-compoundable offences, the High Court can quash prosecution by exercise of the powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C., if the parties have really settled the whole dispute or if the continuance of the prosecution will not serve any purpose. Here, this Court finds a real case of settlement between the parties and it is also found that continuance of the ::4:: Crl.M.C.Nos.3845 & 3848 Of 2015 prosecution in such a situation will not serve any purpose other than wasting the precious time of the court, when the case ultimately comes before the court. On a perusal of the petition and on a close scrutiny of the investigation materials on record and the affidavit of settlement and taking into account the attendant facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the legal principles laid down by the Apex Court in the cases as in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 160 = (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr. reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, more particularly paragraph 29 thereof, could be applied in this case to consider the prayer for quashment. 3. Accordingly, it is ordered in Crl.M.C.No.3845/2015 that the impugned Anx-B final report in Crime No.366/2014 of Hemambika Nagar Police Station, which is now pending as C.P.No.15/2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Palakkad and all further proceedings arising therefrom pending against the petitioners therein stand quashed under ::5:: Crl.M.C.Nos.3845 & 3848 Of 2015 Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is also ordered in Crl.M.C.No.3848/2015 that the impugned Anx-E final report in Crime No.335/2014 of Hemambika Nagar Police Station and all further proceedings arising therefrom pending against the petitioners therein stand quashed under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. With these observations and directions, these Crl.M.Cs stand finally disposed of. ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge. bkn/-