Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeCriminal Misc. Case disposed of; FIR No.261/201...

:null

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No.7398 of 2019 (D)

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Alexander Thomas
Judgment Date
2019-10-29
Court Decision / Holding
The impugned Anx-1 FIR & Anx-2 Final Report in Crime No.261/2016 of Nadapuram Police Station, Kozhikode District and all further proceedings arising therefrom will stand quashed.
Final Disposition
Criminal Misc. Case disposed of; FIR No.261/2016 and the final report quashed; proceedings to be closed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Sooraj
  • Mohanan P.V. @ Bava
  • Ramith
  • Santosh
  • Nidin.B
  • Raneesh @ Rini
  • Anoop
  • Saral
  • Bineesh
  • Sonu.P.
  • Krishnakumar
  • Sarath
  • Jithesh

Respondents

  • State of Kerala, rep. by S.H.O Nadapuram Police Station, rep. by Public Prosecutor
  • Vishnu
  • Rakhil
  • Rajeesh
  • Nidhin
  • Abhijith
  • Shibin Lal
  • Sreejin
  • Vijayan
  • Vijeesh
  • Salini
  • Kamala
  • Latha

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri M Promodh Kumar
  • • Smt. Maya Chandran

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Adv. Rajesh Nambiar
  • • Sri Santosh Peter (Public Prosecutor)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court judgment, delivered by Justice Alexander Thomas on 29 October 2019, concerns Crl.MC No.7398 of 2019 (D), a criminal miscellaneous case filed for quashing an FIR (Crime No.261/2016) registered at Nadapuram Police Station, Kozhikode, for offences under sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 294, 308 and 149 IPC. The 13 petitioners (accused) seek to quash the impugned FIR and the Final Report (Anx-1 and Anx-2) under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C., arguing that the entire dispute with respondents 2–13 has been amicably settled. Respondents 2–13 have sworn affidavits (Annexures 5–16) stating they have settled the disputes with the petitioners and have no objection to quashment; respondent 1 (State) is represented by the Public Prosecutor, Sri Santosh Peter, and respondents 2–13 are represented by Adv. Rajesh Nambiar. The court relies on Supreme Court doctrine in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (para 29) that a real settlement between parties can justify quashing a prosecution, even where offences are non‑compoundable, if continued prosecution would serve no purpose. After reviewing the materials and affidavits, the court holds that a genuine settlement exists and continuing the prosecution would be a waste of judicial time, thus quashing the FIR and the final report and disposing of the case.

Provisions of Law Cited

Sec.143 IPCSec.147 IPCSec.148 IPCSec.341 IPCSec.324 IPCSec.294 IPCSec.308 IPCSec.149 IPCSec.482 Cr.P.C.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Settlement between the parties can justify quashing of criminal proceedings under Cr.P.C. 482, even in cases involving non‑compoundable offences, where continuation would serve no purpose.
  • Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2013) (1) SCC (Cri) 160 = (2012) 10 SCC 303 (para 29)
  • Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr, (2014) 6 SCC 466 (para 29)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that the parties have resolved the entire dispute amicably as evidenced by affidavits (Annexures 5–16) leading to no object to quashment of the FIR and final report. They rely on established authority (Gian Singh and Narinder Singh) that settlement can justify quashing even where offences are non‑compoundable if continuing proceedings would not serve any meaningful purpose and would only waste court time. The request is thus grounded in public interest to conserve judicial resources and restore harmony between the parties, given the absence of ongoing grievance.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents 2–13 have sworn affidavits stating that disputes have been settled with the petitioners and that they have no objection to quashment; the State (through the Public Prosecutor) and the rest do not oppose the relief in light of the affidavits. The respondents rely on the settled factual matrix and on the jurisprudence allowing quashing under Cr.P.C. 482 where a genuine settlement exists and prosecution would be fruitless, as cited by the court (Gian Singh; Narinder Singh).

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 160 = (2012) 10 SCC 303PositiveCourt relies on Gian Singh to support quashing a prosecution on settlement even for non‑compoundable offences under Cr.P.C. 482.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr(2014) 6 SCC 466PositivePara 29 used to reinforce the settlement‑based quashing principle.

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 ALEXANDER THOMAS** **TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 7TH KARTHIKA, 1941** **Crl.MC.No.7398 OF 2019(D)** **SC 458/2018 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, VATAKARA** **SC 1150/2017 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, VATAKARA** **CP 70/2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NADAPURAM** **CRIME NO.261/2016 OF Nadapuram Police Station , Kozhikode** **PETITIONER/S:** - **1 SOORAJ, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.SURENDRAN, POYIL HOUSE, AYADATHIL, KODANCHERI P.O., VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT- 673580.** - **2 MOHANAN P.V.@ BAVA, AGED 34 YEARS S/O.KUNHIYEKKAN, PUTHANPEEDIKAYIL, KODANCHERY P.O., VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT673580.** - **3 RAMITH, AGED 29 YEARS S/O.RAVI, KOYILOTHUMPOYIL, KODANCHERI P.O., VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT- 673580.** - **4 SANTHOSH, AGED 37 YEARS S/O.BALAN, VELLARVALLI HOUSE, KODANCHERI P.O., VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT- 673580.** - **5 NIDHIN.B, AGED 25 YEARS S/O.BABU, KUNDILOTTUMMAL HOUSE, KODANCHERI P.O., VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** - **6 RANEESH @ RINI, AGED 31 YEARS S/O.MOHANAN, MALOLPASEL, KODANCHERI P.O., VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT- 673580.** ::2:: **Crl.MC.No.7398 OF 2019(D)** - **7 ANOOP, AGED 26 YEARS S/O.APPU @ RAGHAVAN, ILLATHTHAZHAKUNI AKKAL VEEDU, KODANCHERI P.O., VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT- 673580.** - **8 SARAL, AGED 31 YEARS S/O.VALSAN, VELLARVALLI, KODANCHERI P.O., VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT- 673580.** - **9 BINEESH, AGED 31 YEARS S/O.BAVA @ DAMODHARAN, AYADATHIL VEEDU, KODANCHERI P.O., VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT- 673580.** - **10 SONU.P., AGED 23 YEARS** - **S/O.PRAMODH, KANDOTHBIVIL HOUSE, KODANCHERI P.O., VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT673580.** - **11 KRISHNAKUMAR, AGED 38 YEARS** - **S/O.BALAN, KAYTHIRIKKAL HOUSE, KODANCHERI P.O., VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT673580.** - **12 SARATH, AGED 25 YEARS** **S/O.SARATH, VALIYIDAYI THAZHEUKUNI, KODANCHERI P.O., VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT673580.** - **13 JITHESH, AGED 32 YEARS** - **S/O.AJAYAN @ AJITHA, PUNNOLITHAZHEKUNI HOUSE, KODANCHERI P.O., VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT- 673580.** **BY ADVS. SRI.M.PROMODH KUMAR SMT.MAYA CHANDRAN** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** ::3:: **Crl.MC.No.7398 OF 2019(D)** - **1 STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY S.H.O.NADAPURAM POLICE STATION, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM- 31.** - **2 VISHNU, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.BABU, CHITTARIKUNIYIL HOUSE, VELLUR, KODANCHERY P.O., VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT673580.** - **3 RAKHIL, AGED 2 YEARS, S/O.RAJAN, NELLOLIMEETHAL HOUSE, VELLOOR, KODANCHERY P.O., VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT673580.** - **4 RAJEESH, AGED 32 YEARS S/O.RAJAN, NELLOLIMEETHAL HOUSE, VELLOOR, KODANCHERY P.O., VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT- 673580.** - **5 NIDHIN, AGED 23 YEARS S/O.ASHOKAN, KULANGARATH HOUSE, PURAMERI P.O., VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT- 673580.** - **6 ABHIJITH, AGED 26 YEARS S/O.RAJAN, NELLOLIMEETHAL HOUSE, VELLOOR, KODANCHERY P.O., VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT- 673580.** - **7 SHIBIN LAL, AGED 23 YEARS S/O.SREEDHARAN, KIZHAKKAYIL HOUSE, VELLOOR, KODANCHERY P.O., VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT- 673580.** - **8 SREEJIN, AGED 24 YEARS S/O.SREEDHARAN, CHAMAKKAL HOUSE, VELOOR, KODANCHERY P.O., VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT- 673580.** - **9 VIJAYAN, AGED 45 YEARS S/O.CHANDU NAIR, CHITTARIKUNIYIL HOUSE, VELLOOR, KODANCHERY P.O., VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT- 673580.** ::4:: **Crl.MC.No.7398 OF 2019(D)** - **10 VIJEESH, AGED 29 YEARS S/O.KUMARAN, NELLOLIMEETHAL HOUSE, VELLOOR, KODANCHERY P.O., VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT- 673580.** - **11 SALINI, AGED 41 YEARS W/O.SATHYAN, MANNICHAMKANDIYIL HOUSE, VELLOOR, KODANCHERY P.O., VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT- 673580.** - **12 KAMALA, AGED 49 YEARS, W/O.RAJAN, EDAVALATHARAMMAL MEETHAL HOUSE, VELLOOR, KODANCHERY P.O., VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT- 673580.** - **13 LATHA, AGED 45 YEARS W/O.RAJAN, NELLOLIMEETHAL HOUSE, VELLOOR, KODANCHERY P.O., VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT- 673580.** **R2-13 BY ADV. RAJESH NAMBIAR** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SRI.SANTHOSH PETER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ::5:: **Crl.MC.No.7398 OF 2019(D)** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J** . ----------------------------Crl.M.C.No.7398 Of 2019 --------------------------------Dated this the 29[th] day of October, 2019. ## **O R D E R** The petitioners herein are the accused in the impugned Anx-1 FIR & A-2 Final Report in Crime No.261/2016 of Nadapuram Police Station, Kozhikode District, registered for offences punishable under Secs.143, 147, 148, 341 324, 294, 308 & 149 of the I.P.C., on the basis of the complaint of the respondents 2 to 13. The alleged incidents happened on a day previous day of the marriage in connection with a dispute regarding paying cards. It is stated that now the entire disputes between the petitioners and respondents 2 to 13 have been settled amicably and that respondents 2 to 13 have sworn to Anxs-5 to 16 affidavits before this Court, wherein it is stated that they have settled the entire disputes with the petitioners and that they have no objection for quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners. It is in the light of these aspects that the petitioners have preferred the instant Crl.M.C. with the prayer to quash the impugned criminal proceedings against them. ::6:: **Crl.MC.No.7398 OF 2019(D)** 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 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. ::7:: **Crl.MC.No.7398 OF 2019(D)** 3. Accordingly, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the impugned Anx-1 FIR & Anx-2 Final Report in Crime No.261/2016 of Nadapuram Police Station, Kozhikode District and all further proceedings arising therefrom pending against the accused persons will stand quashed. The petitioners will produce certified copies of this order before the investigating officer concerned and the competent court below concerned. The office of the Advocate General will forward copy of this order to the investigating officer concerned for information. With these observations and directions, the above Criminal Miscellaneous Case stands finally disposed of. **Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.** bkn/- ::8:: **Crl.MC.No.7398 OF 2019(D)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** ## **ANNEXURE 1** **CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR DATED 04.04.2016.** - **ANNEXURE 2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED BY NADAPURAM POLICE, DATED 18.06.2016.** - **ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, PURAMERI PANCHAYAT, DATED 04.02.2017.** - **ANNEXURE 4 TRUE COPY OF THE WITNESS LIST IN CRIME NO.261/2016, DATED 18.06.2016.** - **ANNEXURE 5 AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED 06.08.2019.** |**ANNEXURE**|**6**|**AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD**|**RESPONDENT,**| |---|---|---|---| |||**DATED 06.08.2019.**|| |**ANNEXURE**|**7**|**AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 4TH**|**RESPONDENT,**| |||**DATED 07.07.2019.**|| |**ANNEXURE**|**8**|**AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 5TH**|**RESPONDENT,**| |||**DATED 27.07.2019.**|| |**ANNEXURE**|**9**|**AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND**|**RESPONDENT,**| |||**DATED 27.07.2019.**|| |**ANNEXURE**|**10**|**AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 7TH**|**RESPONDENT,**| |||**DATED 27.07.2019.**|| |**ANNEXURE**|**11**|**AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 8TH**|**RESPONDENT,**| |||**DATED 25.07.2019.**|| |**ANNEXURE**|**12**|**AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 9TH**|**RESPONDENT,**| |||**DATED 25.07.2019.**|| |**ANNEXURE**|**13**|**AFFIDAVIT**<br>**SWORN**<br>**BY**|**THE**<br>**10TH**| |||**RESPONDENT, DATED 27.07.2019.**|| |**ANNEXURE**|**14**|**AFFIDAVIT**<br>**SWORN**<br>**BY**|**THE**<br>**11TH**| |||**RESPONDENT, DATED 27.07.2019.**|| ::9:: **Crl.MC.No.7398 OF 2019(D)** |**ANNEXURE**|**15**|**AFFIDAVIT**|**SWORN**|**BY**<br>**THE**|**12TH**| |---|---|---|---|---|---| |||**RESPONDENT,**|**DATED**|**27.07.2019.**|| |**ANNEXURE**|**16**|**AFFIDAVIT**|**SWORN**|**BY**<br>**THE**|**13TH**| |||**RESPONDENT,**|**DATED**|**27.07.2019.**||