Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed / Relief Granted: Crl.M.C allowed; Fina...

Mathew @ Kuttan and others v. State of Kerala and others

Case / Petition Number:CRL.MC NO.1590 OF 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • K. BABU
Judgment Date
2023-03-20
Court Decision / Holding
Crl.M.C. allowed. Annexure-A1 Final Report in Crime No.286 of 2003 and all subsequent proceedings in CC No.205 of 2015 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court III, North Paravur, stand quashed against the petitioners.
Final Disposition
Quashed / Relief Granted: Crl.M.C allowed; Final Report and CC proceedings quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Mathew @ Kuttan
  • John Paul
  • Jiffil Joseph @ Jibilan
  • Smini @ Smitha Varghese
  • Dainal Jose
  • Jose
  • Shibu Austin
  • Yesudas @ Beppan
  • Nijil @ Nijin John

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
  • Sub Inspector of Police, Varappuzha Police Station, Ernakulam Rural
  • Stella (aged 72)
  • Vargheese (aged 75)
  • Shajan (aged 44)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • V. Rajendran (Perumbavoor)
  • • N. Rajesh
  • • Gopakumar P.

Counsels for Respondents

  • • G. Sudheer (Government Pleader)
  • • Adv Harshadev M.

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a criminal miscellaneous case (CRL.MC No.1590 of 2023) disposed by the High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, on 20 March 2023, by single-judge bench of Justice K. Babu. The petition seeks to quash Annexure-A1 Final Report in Crime No.286 of 2003 of Varappuzha Police Station and all further proceedings in CC No.205 of 2015 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court III, North Paravur, on the ground that the parties have amicably settled the entire subject matter. Accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 10 are the petitioners. The offences alleged span sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 427, 341, 323, 324, 326 read with 149 IPC. Respondents 3 to 5 appeared through counsel; affidavits were filed. The Public Prosecutor stated that victims were examined and the dispute is settled, voluntary, fair, and not against the conscience of the court; the defacto complainant has decided not to proceed. The court cites Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and Others, and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Lakshmi Narayan and Others to explain that underSection 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court can quash proceedings in relation to non-compoundable offences where parties settle, to serve ends of justice and prevent abuse of process. It notes the dispute is personal, not public-interest affecting, and the offences do not fall under a category barred from compromise. Consequently, the court allows the Crl.M.C. and quashes Annexure-A1 and CC No.205/2015 proceedings. The order is by K. Babu, J., Single Judge.

Provisions of Law Cited

IPC Section 143IPC Section 147IPC Section 148IPC Section 448IPC Section 427IPC Section 341IPC Section 323IPC Section 324IPC Section 326 read with Section 149 IPCSection 320 Cr.P.C.Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Ends of justice
  • Abuse of process of the court
  • Quashing in appropriate cases under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in settlement (Gian Singh/Narinder Singh/Lakshmi Narayan jurisprudence)
  • Settlement between parties can justify compromise despite non-compoundability in particular factual contexts

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants contended that the dispute was entirely private, with the defacto complainants choosing not to pursue further action. They argued that the settlement was voluntary, fair, and based on free will, involving no public interest or harm to public tranquility. Relying on established Supreme Court guidance, they urged the court to exercise the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the Final Report and further proceedings, given that a peaceful settlement has been achieved and continued litigation would amount to abuse of process. The petition emphasised that the offences are not of a type that must be excluded from compromise, and the overarching objective is to prevent unnecessary prosecution when justice can be served through settlement.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents' counsel emphasised the need to consider the nature of the offences and the public interest in maintaining law and order. They pointed to the settled facts that the victims’ statements were recorded and that the dispute appears purely private. They relied on the jurisprudence cited by the court (Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, Lakshmi Narayan) to argue that the High Court can exercise its inherent powers to quash in appropriate circumstances where a settlement ensures ends of justice, while noting that the offences are not necessarily categorised as those requiring prohibition on compromise. They framed the case as one where the settlement should be weighed against the potential impact on public interest and the severity of the offences.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)PositiveCited to support the proposition that the High Court can exercise Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings in relation to non-compoundable offences where there is a settlement, if warranted to serve ends of justice.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and Others(2014) 6 SCC 466PositiveCited for the same rationale; supports quashing in settlement where ends of justice require, despite non-compoundability.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Lakshmi Narayan and Others(2019) 5 SCC 688PositiveCited to reinforce the principle that settlement and ends of justice can permit quashing, even when offences are non-compoundable, under 482 Cr.P.C.

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 Mathew @ Kuttan and others v. State of Kerala and others 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 ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 20[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 29TH PHALGUNA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 1590 OF 2023 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTCC 205/2015 OF JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, III, NORTH PARAVUR (TEMPORARY) CRIME NO.286 OF 2003 OF VARAPUZHA POLICE STATION ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` 1MATHEW @ KUTTAN AGED 42 YEARS S/O. VARGHESE, ODATHAKKAL HOUSE THUNDATHUMKADAVU KARA VARAPPUZHA P.O., VARAPPUZHA VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683517 2JOHN PAUL AGED 39 YEARS S/O. JOY, KURISINGAL HOUSE THUNDATHUMKADAVU KARA VARAPPUZHA VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683517 3JIFFIL JOSEPH @ JIBILAN AGED 40 YEARS S.O.JOSEPH.T.P., KURISINGAL HOUSE, THUNDATHUMKADAVU KARA VARAPPUZHA VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK., PIN - 683517 4SMINI@SMITHA VARGHESE AGED 42 YEARS D.O. VARGHESE, ODATHAKKAL HOUSE THUNDATHUMKADAVU KARA VARAPPUZHA VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683517 5DAINAL JOSE AGED 37 YEARS S.O. JOSE, PALLIKKA HOUSE, THUNDATHUMKADAVU KARA VARAPPUZHA VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683517 6JOSE AGED 62 YEARS S.O. JOHN ODATHAKKAL HOUSE, THUNDATHUMKADAVU KARA VARAPPUZHA VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK ``` Crl.M.C.No.1590 of 2023 ..2.. ``` ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683517 7SHIBU AUSTIN AGED 48 YEARS S.O. AUSTIN, THAIPPARAMBIL HOUSE THUNDATHUMKADAVU KARA VARAPPUZHA VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683517 8YESUDAS @ BEPPAN AGED 38 YEARS S.O. JOY @ VARGHESE, ODATHAKKAL HOUSE, THUNDATHUMKADAVU KARA VARAPPUZHA VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683517 9NIJIL @ NIJIN JOHN AGED 33 YEARS S.O. JOSE, ODATHAKKAL HOUSE, THUNDATHUMKADAVU KARA VARAPPUZHA VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683517 BY ADVS. V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) N.RAJESH GOPAKUMAR P. ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** - `1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031` - `2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE VARAPPUZHA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM RURAL, PIN - 683517` - `3 STELLA AGED 72 YEARS W.O. VARGHESE, ARACKAL HOUSE THUNDATHUMKADAVU KARA, VARAPPUZHA VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT -, PIN - 683517` - `4 VARGHESE AGED 75 YEARS S.O. CHEEKKU, ARACKAL HOUSE THUNDATHUMKADAVU KARA VARAPPUZHA VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683517` - `5 SHAJAN AGED 44 YEARS` Crl.M.C.No.1590 of 2023 **==> picture [20 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` S.O. VARGHESE, ARACKAL HOUSE THUNDATHUMKADAVU KARA VARAPPUZHA VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 683517 ``` ``` R1 AND R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI G SUDHEER ``` ``` R3 TO R5 BY ADV HARSHADEV M. ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` Crl.M.C.No.1590 of 2023 **==> picture [20 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ## **K.BABU, J** . -------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.1590 of 2023 --------------------------------------Dated this the 20[th ] day of March, 2023 ## **O R D E R** The prayer in this Crl.M.C. is to quash Annexure – A1 Final Report in Crime No. 286 of 2003 of Varappuzha Police Station and all further proceedings in C.C.No.205 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – III, North Paravur, on the ground that the parties have arrived at a settlement in respect of the subject matter. 2. The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 10. 3. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 427, 341, 323, 324, 326 r/w Section 149 of IPC. 4. Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 entered appearance Crl.M.C.No.1590 of 2023 **==> picture [20 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** through counsel. Affidavits sworn to by them have also been placed before the Court. 5. Heard Shri. V. Rajendran (Perumbavoor), the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and the learned Public Prosecutor. 6. I have perused the averments in the petition and the affidavits sworn to by respondent Nos. 3 to 5. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the matter was enquired into through the Investigating Officer, who has taken statements of the victims, and it is reported that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled. The material placed before the Court shows that the entire dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the defacto complainant has decided not to proceed further. The settlement between the parties is found to be voluntary and fair. The settlement or the compromise satisfies the conscience of the Court. It is seen that the victims agreed Crl.M.C.No.1590 of 2023 **==> picture [20 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** to settle the matter with their free will. 8. 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. 9. 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 offences in question do not fall within the category of serious offences or heinous offences. 10. The offences in the present case do not fall Crl.M.C.No.1590 of 2023 **==> picture [20 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** within the category of offences prohibited for granting permission to compromise in terms of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in **Gian Singh** (supra), **Narinder Singh** (supra) and **Lakshmi Narayan** (supra). 11. This Court is of the view that no purpose will be served in proceeding with the matter further. Resultantly, the Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure – A1 Final Report in Crime No. 286 of 2003 of Varappuzha Police Station, and all further proceedings in C.C.No.205 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – III, North Paravur, as against the petitioners, stand hereby quashed. Sd/- **K.BABU, JUDGE** kkj Crl.M.C.No.1590 of 2023 ..8.. ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1590/2023`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN C.C NO. 205/2015 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT III, NORTH PARAVUR ON 30.06.2007 Annexure A2AFFIDAVIT DATED 3.2.2023 SWORN TO BY 3RD RESPONDENT. Annexure A3AFFIDAVIT DATED 22.2.2023 SWORN TO BY 4TH RESPONDENT. Annexure A4AFFIDAVIT DATED 22.2.2023 SWORN TO BY 5TH RESPONDENT. ```