NIKIL VISHNU S/O. VISWANATHAN v. STATE OF KERALA & FADHIL BIN ABDUL LATHEEF

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date: 2016-11-07
Court Decision / Holding: Petition allowed; quashing of the FIR in Crime No. 602/2016 and all proceedings against the petitioner Nikil Vishnu are quashed.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; quashing of the FIR and proceedings against the petitioner

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Nikil Vishnu S/o Viswanathan

Respondents

State of Kerala
Fadhil Bin Abdul Latheef

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• T. K. Sandeep

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor Amjad Ali
• Sri. Gokul Das V.V.H.

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, presided over by Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V, decides a criminal miscellaneous case under section 482 CrPC to quash a pending criminal proceeding arising from Crime No. 602/2016 of Sreekrishnapuram Police Station. The petitioner, Nikil Vishnu, a third-year mechanical engineering student, is accused along with the 2nd respondent, Fadhil Bin Abdul Latheef, in offences under IPC sections 341 and 294(b) and under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1998 (Kerala). The incident allegedly occurred on 1.9.2016, when the 2nd respondent, a first-year student, was subjected to orders about attire and forced physical exertion. The case records that the 2nd respondent and his mother have given affidavits stating that disputes have been resolved and the parties are living in peace and amity; no physical harm is alleged. The respondents’ counsel contends the parties have amicably settled and the continuation of prosecution would be unjust and an abuse of process. The Public Prosecutor was asked to verify instructions. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court holds that where settlement exists, ends of justice may justify quashing. The Court ultimately quashes the FIR and all proceedings against the petitioner, allowing the petition.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)Section 341 IPCSection 294(b) IPCProhibition of Ragging Act, 1998 (Kerala) Sec. 3 read with Sec. 4

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ends of justice (doctrine)
Abuse of process of law (doctrine)
Amicable settlement/compromise as basis to quash proceedings (doctrine)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner/accused sought quashing of the criminal proceedings invoking inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, arguing that the dispute has been resolved amicably and continuation would be contrary to the ends of justice and amount to abuse of process. The record indicates a lack of physical harm and a settlement between the parties, which would facilitate quashing to secure ends of justice.

Contentions of Respondents

The 2nd respondent contends that the dispute arose within the college environment, that the parties are now close friends, and that there is no ongoing harassment. An affidavit from the 2nd respondent and his mother attested that the matter is resolved and peaceful. The Public Prosecutor sought instructions on this position; the court considered these submissions and the relevance of amicable settlement under established jurisprudence.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	(2012) 10 SCC 303	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that the High Court can quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases where there is amicable settlement between victim and wrongdoer to secure ends of justice and prevent abuse of process.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	(2014) 6 SCC 466	Positive	Repeated the dictum that ends of justice and avoidance of abuse of process justify quashing when there is settlement between parties; reinforces the present judgment's approach.

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 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/16TH KARTHIKA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 6647 of 2016 ()** **--------------------------CRIME NO. 602/2016 OF SREEKRISHNAPURAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD** ## **----** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:** **---------------------** **NIKIL VISHNU S/O. VISWANATHAN, AGED 21 YEARS, KARUVANPURAKKAL(H), CHEERATTANMANNA, PERINTHALMANNA, SREEKRISHNAPURAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.T.K.SANDEEP** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT & STATE:** **----------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA** **REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-31** ## **2. FADHIL BIN ABDUL LATHEEF** **AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL LATHEEF, R/AT MADATHODIYIL VEETTIL, AMAYOOR P.O., PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679310** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI R2 BY ADV. SRI.GOKUL DAS V.V.H.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **bp** ## **Crl.MC.No. 6647 of 2016 ()** ## **---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-----------------------** **ANNEXURE I: A TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R. DATED 07.09.2016 IN CRIME NO.602/2016 OF SREEKRISHNAPURAM POLICE ANNEXURE-II: A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 08.09.2016 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** ## **bp** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.6647 of 2016** ## **----------------------------------------Dated this the 7[th] day of November, 2016** ## **O R D E R** - 1.This petition is filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) with a prayer to invoke the extraordinary inherent powers and to quash the pending criminal proceedings. - 2.The petitioner herein is the accused in Crime No.602 of 2016 of Sreekrishnapuram Police Station registered at the instance of the 2[nd] respondent herein alleging offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b) of the IPC and under Section 3 read with section 4 of the Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1998 (Kerala). - 3.The petitioner as well as the 2[nd] respondent/defacto complainant are students of the Government Engineering College, Sreekrishnapuram. The petitioner herein is a 3[rd] Crl.M.C.6647/2016 2 year Mechanical Engineering student and the de facto complainant is studying in the same College as a 1[st] year student in the Electrical and Electronics Engineering branch. The prosecution allegation is that on 1.9.2016 between 8.30 a.m. and 4 pm, the petitioner asked the 2[nd] respondent to unfold the sleeves of the shirt worn by him and ordered that he should come to the college only after having a clean shave. It is further alleged that the 2[nd] respondent was asked to do push ups. On these allegations, Annexure-I complaint was preferred before the Principal of the College, which was forwarded to the Police resulting in the registration of the crime. - 4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the 2[nd] respondent and the learned Public prosecutor. - 5.The learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent submits that the parties have become close friends and that the complaint was lodged before the Principal under a particular frame of mind. According to the 2[nd] respondent Crl.M.C.6647/2016 3 they are both studying in the same college and the family members had a long talk and they have decided that it was not in the interest of the parties to continue with the prosecution. According to the 2[nd] respondent, there was no physical harassment and as he has resolved all the disputes it is only fit and proper that the prosecution be terminated. Stating all these aspects an affidavit has also been sworn to by the 2[nd] respondent . - 6.The learned Public Prosecutor was directed to get specific instructions. It is submitted that a statement has been recorded from the mother of the 2[nd ] respondent as well as the 2[nd ] respondent which reveals that the disputes have been resolved and they are living in peace and amity. - 7.I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the materials on record. ## 8.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 Crl.M.C.6647/2016 4 disputes between the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. It was observed as follows : _“61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”_ 9.The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court ## in **Narinder singh v. State of Punjab. (2014) 6 SCC** **466,** the pertinent observations which are as under: ## _XXXXXXXXXXXX_ _29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:_ _(i) ends of justice, or_ _(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power_ Crl.M.C.6647/2016 5 _the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives._ _xxxxxxx_ _xxxxxxx_ 10.Though the act committed by the petitioner cannot be justified, I take note of the fact that no physical harm was caused. A detailed statement of the 2[nd] respondent and his mother has been recorded, which also reveals that the parties are living in peace and harmony. The offence committed by the petitioner is not having ingredients of extreme mental depravity. It also does not appear that the offence in this case will have a serious impact on the society. It is felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and secure the ends of justice. Even otherwise, persisting with the prosecution would be nothing but a waste of time as the prospects of conviction would be bleak. 11.Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court will be well justified in Crl.M.C.6647/2016 6 invoking its extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings. In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-I FIR in Crime No.602 of 2016 of Sreekrishnapuram Police Station and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner are quashed. **Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE** vps