High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeThe court disposed of the matter by allowing th...

null

Case / Petition Number:CRL.MC NO. 4344 OF 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • K. Babu
Judgment Date
2023-07-26
Court Decision / Holding
Crl.M.C allowed; Annexure-A2 final report in Crime No.883/2017 and all further proceedings in CC No.883/2017 stood quashed.
Final Disposition
The court disposed of the matter by allowing the Criminal Misc. Case; quashing the final report and all further proceedings in CC No.883/2017.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Vishnu Viswanathan
  • Muhammed Shan
  • Akash
  • Rashik
  • Akhil
  • Anto Rose
  • Anandhu
  • Anantharaman
  • Murukalal
  • Akhil Manoj
  • Vyshnav
  • Rohit Sunil

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
  • Sreekala
  • The Sub Inspector Kadakkal Police Station, Kollam Rural
  • Anil Kumar

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • M.R. Sasith
  • • Reethu Jacob
  • • Anjana Suresh.E
  • • R.K.Chirut ha
  • • Neelanjana Nair
  • • Bhavana
  • • K.K Rajitha V.K

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, heard Crl.M.C. No. 4344 of 2023 challenging the final report (Annexure-A2) in Crime No. 883/2017 of Kadakkal Police Station and the consequent CC No. 883/2017 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kadakkal. The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 12, facing offences under IPC sections 143, 147, 294(b), 323, 354, 427, 149 and 341. Respondents include the State represented by the Public Prosecutor, respondent No.2 Sreekala, respondent No.3 Sub-Inspector Kadakkal Police, and respondent No.4 Anil Kumar. The prosecution reported that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled; affidavits from respondents 2 and 4 were placed on record. The Court heard both sides and found the settlement voluntary, fair, and free from coercion, with the victims deciding not to proceed. The matter concerns a purely personal dispute, and there is nothing to indicate that public interest would be prejudiced by quashing. Citing Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, the Apex Court’s rulings are invoked to permit quashing under Cr.P.C. 482 where the parties settle non‑compoundable offences, to prevent abuse of process and serve ends of justice. The court concluded that none of the offences fall under categories prohibiting compromise, and continuing proceedings would not serve ends of justice. Accordingly, the petition is allowed, and Annexure-A2 final report and all further proceedings in CC No.883/2017 are quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

IPC: 143, 147, 294(b), 323, 354, 427, 149, 341CrPC: Section 482CrPC: Section 320

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Ends of justice
  • Abuse of process of the court
  • Settlement/compromise in non-compoundable offences (Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, Laxmi Narayan)
  • Quashing to prevent abuse of process and to serve ends of justice (Cr.P.C. 482)
  • Not all offences cannot be discounted from quashing where settlement occurs if ends of justice warrant

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants urged that the dispute with the victims has been settled amicably and the matter concerns a purely private dispute. In light of the voluntary and fair settlement, they contended that continuing with the criminal proceedings would be an unnecessary burden and would not serve the ends of justice.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents, through the State, supported the settlement as voluntary and fair, noting the victims’ decision not to pursue the matter. It was argued that the offences are not of a serious nature and that the settlement would not affect public interest; the matter being private in nature supported quashing to prevent abuse of process and to achieve ends of justice.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)PositiveCited as authority that High Courts can quash criminal proceedings under Cr.P.C. 482 where parties settle non‑compoundable offences, if ends of justice or non-abuse of process so warrants.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and Others(2014) 6 SCC 466PositiveCited for the principle that settlement may justify quashing where ends of justice are served and there is no public interest at risk.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others(2019) 5 SCC 688PositiveCited to reinforce the ends-of-justice and non-abuse of process through settlement in appropriate cases.

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 null 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 ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF JULY 2023 / 4TH SRAVANA, 1945 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 4344 OF 2023 ``` ## **`AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 883/2017 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS`** ## **`MAGISTRATE COURT, KADAKKAL`** ``` PETITIONER/S/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 12: ``` - **`1 VISHNU VISWANATHAN AGED 23 YEARS`** - **`2 MUHAMMED SHAN AGED 21 YEARS`** - **`S/O VISWANATHAN, TATTASHERRY HOUSE. ASHRAMAM WARD, AVILIKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT., PIN - 688006`** - **`S/O ABDUL SAMAD, SAMEER MANZIL, ANGURKONAM VILLAGE, NEAR TO PALLIPURAM CRPF CAMP, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 695584`** - **`3 AKASH AGED 19 YEARS S/O SATHISH, SATHEESH MANDIRAM, ALAYAMON VILLAGE CHANNAPETTA P.O., POTHENPARA., PIN - 691311`** - **`4 RASHIK AGED 19 YEARS`** - **`S/O MUHAMMED RAFI, DARUL HUDA, KIZHUVILLOM VILLAGE, KORANI P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 695104`** - **`5 AKHIL AGED 21 YEARS`** - **`S/O SURESH KUMAR, ANTHIKADU KADAVIL HOUSE, ANTHIKADU VILLAGE, THRISSUR., PIN - 680641`** - **`6 ANTO ROSE AGED 23 YEARS`** - **`S/O EMMANUEL,LABBAKKADA MANNAMCHERI HOUSE, KATTAPPANA KANCHIYAR VILLAGE, KANCHIYAR P.O., IDUKKI., PIN - 685511`** - **`7 ANANDHU AGED 21 YEARS`** - **`S/O KUNJUMON, PUTHUVAYAL KARTHIKA. KATTAKADA VILLAGE, KADAYKODU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695572`** - **`8 ANANTHARAMAN AGED 29 YEARS`** - **`S/O LEKSHMIPATHY, KOVIL STREET S9-13, SANTHANOOR PILAYAR, THIRUVANNAMALAI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU., PIN - 606706`** - **`9 MURUKALAL AGED 33 YEARS`** ``` CRL.MC NO. 4344 OF 2023 ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` S/O JOHN ROSE,VILAYIL RESIDENT NO. XXX/143/1, ATTINGAL VILLAGE, NEAR NAYANA HOSPITAL, PIN - 695101 ``` - **`10 AKHIL MANOJ AGED 21 YEARS, S/O MANOJ, AKHIL NIVAS, KALLERI VILLAGE,PARIPPANILOM COLONY, PERUVAYAL P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673008`** - **`11 VYSHNAV AGED 21 YEARS`** - **`S/O VIJAYAKUMAR, NANDANAM HOUSE, NEAR FC GODOWN, ANTHAREEKSHA NAGAR, KAZHAKKOOTTAM VILLAGE, KAZHAKKOOTTAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695582`** - **`12 ROHIT SUNIL AGED 23 YEARS`** ``` /O SUNIL KUMAR,SHANTHA NIVAS. PETTIKULAMKARA VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM, KANNAMANGALAM NORTH P.O, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690106 ``` - **`BY ADVS. M.R.SASITH REETHU JACOB ANJANA SURESH.E R.K.CHIRUTHA NEELANJANA NAIR BHAVANA K.K RAJITHA V.K`** ## **`RESPONDENT/S/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031`** - **`2 SREEKALA AGED 46 YEARS`** - **`W/O MANUKUMAR, MINI BHAVAN, NELLIPPALY MURI, KUTTIKADU P.O., KADAKKAL VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690502`** - **`3 THE SUB INSPECTOR KADAKKAL POLICE STATION, KOLLAM RURAL, PIN - 690502`** - **`4 ANIL KUMAR AGED 56 YEARS`** ``` CRL.MC NO. 4344 OF 2023 ``` ``` 3 ``` ``` S/O APPUKUTTAN, BHAGAVATHY VILSAM, ALTHARAMOODU PULIPPARA, KADAKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM, PIN - 691536 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 4344 OF 2023 ``` ``` 4 ``` ## **K.BABU, J** . **-------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.4344 of 2023 --------------------------------------Dated this the 26[th ] day of July, 2023** ## **O R D E R** The prayer in this Crl.M.C. is to quash Annexure-A2 Final Report in Crime No.883 of 2017 of Kadakkal Police Station, Kollam, and all further proceedings in C.C.No.883 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kadakkal, 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 12. 3. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 143, 147, 294(b), 323, 354, 427, 149 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Respondent Nos. 2 and 4, the victims entered appearance through counsel. Affidavits sworn to by them have also been placed before this Court. 5. Heard both sides. 6. I have perused the averments in the petition and ``` CRL.MC NO. 4344 OF 2023 ``` ``` 5 ``` the affidavits sworn to by respondent Nos.2 and 4. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the matter was enquired into through the Investigating Officer, who has taken the 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 victims have 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 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. Laxmi 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 ``` CRL.MC NO. 4344 OF 2023 ``` ``` 6 ``` 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 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 **Laxmi 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-A2 final ``` CRL.MC NO. 4344 OF 2023 ``` ``` 7 ``` report in Crime No. 883 of 2017 of Kadakkal Police Station and all further proceedings in C.C.No.883 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kadakkal stand hereby quashed. Sd/- **K.BABU, JUDGE** RK ``` CRL.MC NO. 4344 OF 2023 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4344/2023`** |**`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`**|**`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`**| |---|---| |**`Annexure-A1`**|**`THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR`**| ||**`REGISTERED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AS`**| ||**`CRIME NO.883/2017 OF KADAKKAL POLICE`**| ||**`STATION, KOLLAM DATED 13/05/2017 .`**| |**`Annexure-A2`**|**`THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT`**| ||**`DATED 13/05/2017 FILED BEFORE THE`**| ||**`HONORABLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS`**| ||**`MAGISTRATE COURT, KADAKKAL AS CC NO`**| ||**`833/2017.`**| |**`Annexure-A3`**|**`THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND`**| ||**`RESPONDENT DATED 20.05.2023`**| |**`Annexure-A4`**|**`THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 4TH`**| ||**`RESPONDENT DATED 20.05.2023.`**|