High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-06-28Quashed

Nitheesh M.K., Aneesh P.K., Unais P. v. State of Kerala, Leena Manthero and Sunil D'Souza

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No. 3444 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date: 2016-06-28
Court Decision / Holding: In the result, this petition is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C. No. 2505 of 2014 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Kasaragod, shall stand quashed.
Final Disposition: Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Nitheesh M.K.
Aneesh P.K.
Unais P.

Respondents

The State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Leena Manthero
Sunil D'Souza

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri Jawahar Jose

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor SMT. Sareena George
• Sri V. Vinay Menon

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court of Kerala, sitting in a criminal misc petition, quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against accused Nos. 1 to 3 in C.C. No. 2505/2014 arising from Crime No. 223/2013 of Manjeshwar Police Station. The petition under Section 482 CrPC relies on the principle that the High Court may exercise inherent powers to quash when there is an amicable out-of-court settlement and no public interest in continuation of proceedings, as laid down in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and later cases. The petitioners asserted the dispute is personal, there is no acrimony presently, and continuing prosecution would only cause oppression and prejudice. Respondents 2 and 3 filed affidavits stating they have pardoned the petitioners and have no objection to termination; the Public Prosecutor indicated there are no criminal antecedents for the petitioners. The Court found the offence to be personal in nature and not affecting public peace, and that quashing would promote peace and harmony, aligning with the Supreme Court's guidelines in Gian Singh and related authorities. Consequently, the Court held that the instant case falls within the Gian Singh framework and quashed the further proceedings in C.C. No. 2505/2014, Kasaragod.

Provisions of Law Cited

CrPC Section 482CrPC Section 320IPC Sections 323, 324, 448 read with Section 34

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Inherent powers of the High Court under CrPC 482 to quash in light of an out-of-court settlement (de hors Section 320)
Guidelines and ratio from Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 4 KLT 108 recognizing quashing in appropriate compromise scenarios
Settlement/compromise can serve public peace and avoid oppression when there is no likelihood of conviction

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that CrPC 482 powers permit quashing where there is a genuine out-of-court settlement, the parties are reconciled, and continuing criminal proceedings would serve no public interest—especially where the offences are personal in nature. Relying on Gian Singh and subsequent authorities, they contend that quashing preserves peace and avoids oppression arising from prolonged litigation, and that there are no antecedent criminal records.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents adopt a balanced stance acknowledging the settlement and absence of public interest in continuing the case. They contend the court may exercise caution but emphasize that there is a real offence and the need to consider the scope of the compromise. The Public Prosecutor notes the petitioners are not shown to have prior criminal antecedents; the court should ensure the compromise is genuine and recorded to prevent future prejudice.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 (4) KLT 108	Positive	Cited as the core authority establishing the scope of CrPC 482 to quash criminal proceedings in the context of a compromise/out-of-court settlement.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr.	2014 6 SCC 466	Mentioned Only	Cited as part of the line of cases referenced in support, but the judgment does not discuss its specific reasoning or apply its ratio in detail.
Yogendra Yadav and others v. State of Jharkhand	2014 (9) SCC 653	Mentioned Only	Cited as part of the series of cases alongside Gian Singh; the decision does not elaborate on its particular holding within the present order.

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 Nitheesh M.K., Aneesh P.K., Unais P. v. State of Kerala, Leena Manthero and Sunil D'Souza 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** **TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/7TH ASHADHA, 1938** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3444 of 2016** ## **-------------------------------------** ## **C.C.NO. 2505/2014 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KASARAGOD** ## **CRIME NO. 223/2013 OF MANJESHWAR POLICE STATION , KASARAGOD DISTRICT** **--------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3:** **--------------------------------** **1. NITHEESH M.K, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. NANU, RESIDING AT KURUMMAL HOUSE, MANAKKAL, THAZHAKUHIYIL, KAKKATHIL, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **2. ANEESH P.K., AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. LATE ASHOKAN, RESIDING AT PANONNAKANDI HOUSE, VALIYAPALLI, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **3. UNAIS P., AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. IBRAHIM M.P., RESIDING AT PANATHUR HOUSE, PANATHADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE** **RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT & STATE : -----------------------------------------------------------------** **1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.** **2. LEENA MANTHERO, AGED 48 YEARS, W/O. JOSEPH D'SOUZA, THACHERY PADAVU HOUSE, PAVOOR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **..2/-** **..2..** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3444 of 2016** **-------------------------------------** **3. SUNIL D'SOUZA, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. JOSEPH D'SOUZA, THACHERY PADAVU HOUSE, PAVOOR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SAREENA GEORGE R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.V.VINAY MENON** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Msd. **Crl.MC.No. 3444 of 2016** ## **------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :** **ANNEXURE I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR TOGETHER WITH THE FIRST INFORMATION STATEMENT OF THE DEFACTOCOMPLAINANT.** **ANNEXURE II CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET. ANNEXURE III CERTIFIED COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATES (2 IN NUMBER). ANNEXURE IV CERTIFIED COPY OF THE MEMO OF EVIDENCE. ANNEXURE V COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWEARED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **ANNEXURE VI COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWEARED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :** ## **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S.TO JUDGE** Msd. **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.3444 of 2016 ----------------------------------------Dated this the 28[th] day of June, 2016** **O R D E R** - 1.The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.2505 of 2014 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Kasaragod. The said case had arisen from Crime No.223 of 2013 of Manjeshwar Police Station registered at the instance of the second respondent herein alleging commission of offence punishable under sections 323, 324, 448 read with 34 of the IPC. - 2.They have preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure banking on the ratio of the Judgment rendered by the Three – Judge Bench of the Apex Court in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab** - ( 2012 (4) KLT 108) and a series of other cases which Crl.M.C.3444/2016 2 include **Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr.** (2014) 6 SCC 466) and **Yogendra Yadav and others V State of Jharkhand (2014 (9)** **SCC 653 )** with a prayer to quash the above proceeding. The sole ground is that the Apex Court in the above judgments have delineated the circumstances and the cases in which inherent powers under Section 482 can be invoked _de hors_ section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for recognizing out of court settlement for the purpose of quashing criminal proceedings. - 3.The prosecution case is that on 31.3.2013 at about - 1.30 AM, the petitioners trespassed into the house of respondents 2 and 3 and assaulted them. - 4.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. Respondents 2 and 3 also entered appearance through Crl.M.C.3444/2016 3 counsel. They were also heard. 5.It is submitted that the parties have reached an out of court settlement and there is no acrimony between them at present. They have agreed to start afresh and to live in peace and harmony. The pendency of the criminal proceeding will hinder their cordial relationship in no small measure. To bring on record the settlement, respondents 3 and 4 have filed affidavits wherein they state in unequivocal terms that they have pardoned the petitioners and reiterates that they have no objection in terminating the proceedings. - 6.The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that the petitioners are not persons with criminal antecedents. - 7.I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made across the bar and I have also gone through the materials on record. Crl.M.C.3444/2016 4 8.It appears that the offence is entirely personal in nature and do not affect public peace or tranquility. It is also felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace. In a case such as the instant one, even if the prosecution is allowed to continue, it would not serve any purpose as the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. It can only result in putting the _de facto_ complainant and the accused to unwanted oppression and prejudice. Settlement will augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony. - 9.I am of the view that this Court is well justified in quashing the impugned proceedings as the instant case falls within the matrix of guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Gian Singh ( Supra ) and the other cases referred to above. Crl.M.C.3444/2016 5 In the result, this petition is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.2505 of 2014 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Kasaragod, shall stand quashed. **Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE** vps