High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-09-24Disposed of; FIR quashed; proceedings quashed; ...

Parameswaran G. v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:CRL.A.No.598 of 2020; Crl.MC.No.4110 of 2020(C)

Neutral Citation::null

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Alexander Thomas
Judgment Date: 2020-09-24
Court Decision / Holding: The impugned Annexure I FIR in Crime No. 583 of 2020 of Palakkad Town North Police Station and all further proceedings emanating therefrom were quashed and set aside under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. The appeal regarding anticipatory bail became infructuous since the FIR itself was quashed. The cases were disposed of by common order on the basis of the settlement between the parties.
Final Disposition: Disposed of; FIR quashed; proceedings quashed; anticipatory bail issue infructuous; common order in Crl.MC No. 4110 of 2020 and CRL.A No. 598 of 2020

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Parameswaran G., aged 41 years, S/o Gopalakrishnan

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam-682031
Sub Inspector of Police, Palakkad Town North Police Station, Palakkad-678014/678001
De facto complainant (3rd respondent)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Shri. SASI M.R.

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This petition and appeal arise from an FIR in Crime No. 583/2020 registered at Palakkad Town North Police Station, for offences under sections 354 and 354D(I)(i) IPC. Parameswaran G., a driver employed by the Kerala Water Authority, is the sole accused. The de facto complainant, a colleague from the same office, alleged that on 13.05.2020 at 1:45 p.m. the accused sought access to her mobile phone, pressed her right hand, stalked her, and threatened her husband. The parties concede that the dispute stems from workplace conflicts and has escalated into litigation largely due to a misunderstanding. In July 2020, the de facto complainant filed an affidavit stating the impulse behind the proceedings was a misunderstanding and that she does not intend to proceed; she has no objections to quashing the proceedings. The petitioner moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR and further proceedings, citing a bonafide settlement. The court, relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr, and Prakash Philipose v. State of Kerala, held that a genuine settlement between the parties and the public interest in avoiding fruitless litigation justify exercise of inherent powers to quash non‑compoundable offences. With the prosecution not opposing the action, the FIR and all proceedings were quashed. The appeal regarding anticipatory bail became infructuous as the FIR was already quashed, and the matters were disposed of by common order.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)Sections 354 and 354D(I)(i) IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Inherent powers of Cr.P.C. under Section 482 to quash criminal proceedings in settlement scenarios
Bonafide settlement justifies exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction to quash non‑compoundable offences
Continued prosecution would serve no useful purpose where settlement exists and public time is preserved

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner submitted that there was a bonafide settlement between the parties and that continuing prosecution would be an unnecessary burden on the court and an infringement of justice. Relying on Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, and Prakash Philipose, he urged that the High Court should exercise its inherent power under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR and proceedings in light of the settlement, especially since the offences are non‑compoundable but the dispute is resolved and the main purpose of prosecution—resilience of the litigation—would not be served.

Contentions of Respondents

The prosecution did not press strong opposition to the quashing in light of a voluntary settlement; the authorities argued that the matter involves workplace dispute and that the affidavit of settlement and the lack of ongoing public interest justify invoking the inherent powers to prevent fruitless proceedings. The court was urged to consider the public policy of saving judicial time while ensuring proper conduct of the parties.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Prakash Philipose v. State of Kerala	2020 (1) KHC 838	Positive	Court relied on the principle that in cases involving non‑compoundable offences, a bonafide settlement may justify quashing proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 (10) SCC 303	Positive	Apex Court's rule supporting quashing of criminal proceedings under 482 Cr.P.C. where there is a genuine settlement, even in non‑compoundable offences.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr	2014 (6) SCC 466	Positive	Used to reinforce the settlement‑based exercise of inherent jurisdiction 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 Parameswaran G. v. State of Kerala 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** **THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 2ND ASWINA, 1942** ## **Crl.MC.No.4110 OF 2020(C)** **CRIME NO.583/2020 OF Town North Police Station , Palakkad** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **PARAMESWARAN.G AGED 41 YEARS S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN, NEELANCHERI HOUSE, KODUNTHIRAPULLY P.O., ATHALOOR, PALAKKAD-678 006.** **BY ADV. SHRI.SASI M.R.** ## **- RESPONDENTS/STATE, INVESTIGATING OFFICER & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031. 2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALAKKAD TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION, (CRIME NO.583/2020), PALAKKAD TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD-678 001, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031. 3 XXX XXX BY ADV.** **SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.09.2020, ALONG WITH CRL.A.598/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **CRL.A.No.598 OF 2020 & Crl.MC.No.4110 OF 2020(C)** **2** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 2ND ASWINA, 1942** **CRL.A.No.598 OF 2020** **CRIME NO.583/2020 OF Town North Police Station , Palakkad** **APPELLANT/ACCUSED:** **PARAMESWARAN G., AGED 41 YEARS S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN, NEELANCHERI HOUSE, KODUNTHIRAPULLY P.O., ATHALOOR, PALAKKAD.** **BY ADV. SHRI.SASI M.R.** ## **- RESPONDENT/STATE, COMPLAINANT & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA,**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,**| ||**HIGH COURT OF KERALA,**| ||**ERNAKULAM-682031.**| |**2**|**THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,**| ||**PALAKKAD TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION,**| ||**PALAKKAD, PIN-678014.**| |**3**|**VICTIM**| ||**XXXX**| ||**BY ADV.**| ||**SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR**| **THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.09.2020, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.4110/2020(C), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **CRL.A.No.598 OF 2020 & Crl.MC.No.4110 OF 2020(C)** **3** ## ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. -----------------------------------Crl.A.No.598 of 2020 & Crl.M.C. No.4110 of 2020 -----------------------------------Dated this the 24[th] day of September, 2020 ## **ORDER/JUDGMENT** Since above Criminal M.C. for quashment of impugned criminal proceedings and above Criminal Appeal arising out of the refusal to grant anticipatory bail arising out the same crime, these cases are disposed of on the basis of a common order/judgment. Crl. M.C.4110 of 2020 The prayer in the aforecaptioned Criminal M.C. filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as follows: _“... to quash Annexure -I F.I.R. and all further proceedings in Crime No.583/2016 of Palakkad North Police Station.”_ 2. The petitioner herein has been arrayed as the sole accused in the impugned Annexure I Crime No.583 of 2020 of Palakkad Town North Police Station on the basis of the First Information Statement furnished by the 3[rd] respondent (lady de facto complainant) on 13.05.2020 at 6.30 p.m. in respect of the alleged incident is happened on the same day at 1.45 p.m for offences punishable under Sections 354, 354 D(I)(i). **CRL.A.No.598 OF 2020 & Crl.MC.No.4110 OF 2020(C)** **4** 3. The brief of the prosecution case is that the petitioner/accused belongs to Hindu Nair community and that the 3[rd] respondent/lady de facto complainant belongs to Scheduled Cast community (Hindu Cheruman). That the petitioner herein and 3[rd] respondent herein are working as driver and overseer respectively, in the office of Kerala Water Authority at Kalmandapam, Palakkad. The allegation in the instant crime is that on 13.05.2020 at 1.45 p.m. the petitioner /accused asked for the mobile phone of the 3[rd] respondent / lady de facto complainant to get it unlocked and that he pressed her right hand, and previous to the incident he used to stalk her and that on the date of incident the appellant/ accused has allegedly intimidated her by threatening to kill her husband etc. Now it is stated that the impugned criminal proceedings arisen out of misunderstanding and petty disputes between the parties who are working as the employees of the Kerala Water Authority, in the same office and that their disputes have now been settled and that the 3[rd] respondent has now filed Annexure II affidavit dated 17.07.2020 stating the impugned criminal proceedings have been set in motion on the basis of misunderstanding and misconception of facts and that she does not intend to proceed further in the matter and that she has no objections to quash the impugned criminal proceedings on the ground **CRL.A.No.598 OF 2020 & Crl.MC.No.4110 OF 2020(C)** **5** of settlement. The petitioner place reliance on the decision of this Court as in _**Prakash Philipose v. State of Kerala**_ [2020 (1) KHC 838] wherein it held that in a case involving the offence as per S.354 of the IPC, especially when there is a bonafide settlement between the parties, the Court has sufficient grounds to interdict the impugned criminal proceedings by exercising the inherent powers conferred under S.482 of the Cr.P.C. 4. 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**_ **CRL.A.No.598 OF 2020 & Crl.MC.No.4110 OF 2020(C)** **6** 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. 5. Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case in which discretion of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. could be befittingly invoked for quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement. The prosecution also does not appear to have any serious objection to the said cause of action. Accordingly, it is ordered that the impugned Annexure I FIR in Crime No.583 of 2020 of Palakkad Town North Police Station in which the petitioner has been arrayed as the sole accused therein and all further proceedings emanating therefrom will stand quashed and set aside. Petitioner will produce certified copy of this order before the investigating officer concerned and also before the court below concerned for necessary information. Crl. Appeal No.598 of 2020 The above said Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant / accused in the above said crime No.583 of 2020 of Palakkad Town North Police Station, so as to challenge the order dated 01.07.2020 passed by the **CRL.A.No.598 OF 2020 & Crl.MC.No.4110 OF 2020(C)** **7** Sessions Court Judge, Palakkad refusing to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Since the impugned criminal proceedings arising out of Annexure A1 FIR in Crime No.583/2020 of Palakkad Town North Police Station has been already quashed by this Court as per the separate order rendered today (24.09.2020) in Criminal M.C. No.4110 of 2020 filed by the petitioner herein, the issue relating to the refusal to grant anticipatory bail in this crime has become infructuous. 2. Though, R2 has been duly served, there is no appearance for the party. Though contesting respondent No.3 (lady de facto complainant) in this case has been duly served in Criminal Appeal No.598 of 2020, she has not entered appearance but her affidavit has been filed in both these cases. Accordingly, in view of the said aspects no orders are necessary and the above Criminal Appeal will stand disposed of. **Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE** SCS **CRL.A.No.598 OF 2020 & Crl.MC.No.4110 OF 2020(C)** **8** ## **APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 4110/2020** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE I ATTESTED TRUE COPY OF FIR AND FIS IN CRIME NO.583/2020 REGISTERED BY SECOND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE II ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 17.07.2020.** **CRL.A.No.598 OF 2020 & Crl.MC.No.4110 OF 2020(C)** **9** ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.A 598/2020** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.583/2020 OF PALAKKAD TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01.07.2020 IN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS CASES NO.199/2020 IN CRIME NO.583/2020 OF PALAKKAD TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION.** ## **ANNEXURE A3** **AFFIDAVIT BY THE DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT.** //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE