High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeThe petition is disposed of with the quashing o...

Paul, Nibin, and Christy v. Bernad Shah and State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No. 3766 of 2014

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • K. Ramakrishnan
Judgment Date
2014-07-24
Court Decision / Holding
Petition allowed; further proceedings in Crime No.109/2014 of East Kallada Police Station against the petitioners are quashed. The office is directed to communicate the order to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kollam for necessary action.
Final Disposition
The petition is disposed of with the quashing of proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No.109/2014.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Paul
  • Nibin
  • Christy

Respondents

  • Bernad Shah
  • State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri.V.V.RAJA

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri.Ajeesh K.Sasi
  • • Smt. Hyma

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court Criminal Miscellaneous Case concerns quashing proceedings in Crime No.109/2014 of East Kallada Police Station under Section 482 CrPC in light of a settlement between the accused (Paul, Nibin, Christy) and the defacto complainant Bernad Shah, who is their uncle’s son. The accused, who are brothers, faced allegations of offences including sections 294(b), 323, 324, 326 read with 34 IPC arising from an intra-family dispute that led to injuries. Following a family mediation, the parties settled, and the defacto complainant states he no longer wishes to prosecute. The petition argues that continuing the investigation and potential final report would defeat the recovered harmony and that, given the settlement and the relatives’ restored relationship, quashing would serve the interest of justice even though some offences are non‑compoundable. The Public Prosecutor initially opposed, noting the crime stage and the non‑compoundable offences. The court relies on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab to recognize that in private disputes between relatives, settlement and restored family harmony can justify invoking 482 CrPC to quash proceedings, and that the court must exercise caution at the initial stage but may quash where no conviction is possible and interest of justice requires it. The petition is allowed; proceedings in Crime No.109/2014 are quashed and the police are informed accordingly.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012 (4) KLT 108(SC) — a principle permitting quashing at the initial stage where a private settlement and restored family harmony exist, thereby promoting settlement under section 482 CrPC; cautions that quashing should generally be slow and only when no purpose would be served by continued proceedings.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argued that the offences arose from a private family dispute and that settlement between relatives has restored harmony; continuing the investigation would undermine the settlement and family tranquility. They urged the court to exercise its inherent power under section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR and all further proceedings, especially since the defacto complainant does not wish to prosecute. They emphasized that the decision in Gian Singh supports quashing in private disputes to preserve public peace and family harmony, and that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the case at the expense of reconciliation.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that the case is at the crime stage with non‑compoundable offences; the public interest and the integrity of the investigation require that proceedings not be quashed at this stage. They highlighted that the complainant and witnesses may be reluctant to cooperate, and that the court must exercise caution before quashing to avoid undermining justice; nonetheless, the relationship between parties is investigated and the court can consider the settled circumstances.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab2012 (4) KLT 108(SC)PositiveCited to justify quashing in private disputes between relatives where settlement and restoration of harmony exist; supports invoking 482 CrPC to promote settlement.

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 Paul, Nibin, and Christy v. Bernad Shah and 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 K.RAMAKRISHNAN** **THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JULY 2014/2ND SRAVANA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3766 of 2014 ()** **--------------------------CRIME NO. 109/2014 OF EAST KALLADA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM -----------** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS 1 TO 3 :** **------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. PAUL, AGED 26 YEARS,** - **S/O.MARY DASAN, PLAVILA VEEDU, KODUVILA, EAST KALLADA, KOLLAM** **2. NIBIN, S/O.MARY DASAN, PLAVILA VEEDU, KODUVILA EAST KALLADA, KOLLAM** **3. CHRISTY, S/O.MARY DASAN, PLAVILA VEEDU, KODUVILA EAST KALLADA, KOLLAM** **BY ADV. SRI.V.V.RAJA** ## **RESPONDENTS/CHANRGE WITNESSESS 1 & 2 & STATE :** **---------------------------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. BERNAD SHAH, AGED 32 YEARS,** **S/O.STANILAVOS, RESIDING AT SHEEJA MANDIRAM, PARICHERY KEZHUVILA MURI, KIZHAKKE VILLAGE, KOLLAM 691 001** ## **2. STATE OF KERALA** **REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGHC OURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.AJEESH K.SASI R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. HYMA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-07-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **BP** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3766 of 2014 ()** **---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE 1: TRUE COPY OF THE FIR AND FIS IN CRIME NO 109 OF 2014 OF THE EAST KALLADA POLICE STATION** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **:** **NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **BP** ## **K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.** ................................................. Crl.M.C.No.3766 of 2014 .................................................. Dated this the 24[th] day of July, 2014. ## **O R D E R** This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed by accused 1 to 3 in Crime No.109/2014 of East Kallada Police Station (Kollam District) to quash the proceedings on the basis of a settlement under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioners have been arrayed as accused 1 to 3 in Crime No.109/2014 of East Kallada Police Station, which was registered on the basis of a statement given by the first respondent as defacto complainant alleging commission of the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners are brothers and defacto complainant is their uncle's son. Due to some misunderstanding between the parties, some incident happened, in which the defacto complainant sustained injuries. Due to intervention of family members, the matter has been settled between the parties and the defacto complainant Crl.M.C.No.3766 of 2014 2 does not want to prosecute the case any further on account of the settlement. Since the case is in the crime stage and some of the offences are non compoundable in nature, neither the court below nor the police will drop the proceedings. So the petitioners have no other remedy except to approach this Court seeking the following relief: “In the above circumstance it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash Annexure-1 FIR and all further proceedings in Crime No.109/2014 of the East Kallada Police Station by allowing this Criminal Miscellaneous Case”. 3. The first respondent appeared through counsel and submitted that the parties are relatives and the matter has been settled between the parties. On account of the settlement, the first respondent does not want to prosecute the petitioners any longer. Now the relationship has been restored as well. He had filed an affidavit stating these facts. 4. The counsel for the petitioners also submitted that in view of the settlement, the relationship between them has been restored to the original position and harmony has been brought in the family and he prayed for allowing the application. 3 Crl.M.C.No.3766 of 2014 5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, as directed by this Court submitted that there is no other case against the petitioners and the parties are relatives but opposed the application on the ground that it is in the crime stage and grave offences have been incorporated. 6. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners are brothers and the first respondent/defacto complainant is their uncle's son. It is also an admitted fact that on the basis of the statement given by the first respondent, Annexure-1 First Information Report was registered as Crime No.109/2014 of East Kallada Police Station against the petitioners alleging offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and investigation is in the preliminary stage. Now the matter has been settled between the parties due to intervention of family members and other well wishers and on account of the settlement, the relationship between the parties has been restored to the original position and harmony has been brought in the family. On account of the settlement, there is no possibility of the defacto complainant or witnesses co-operating with the investigation or filing of the final report or even if final report is filed, there is no possibility Crl.M.C.No.3766 of 2014 4 of conviction in such cases. Further, in the decision reported in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab** [2012 (4) KLT 108(SC)] it has been held that if the incident occurred due to some private dispute between the parties, who are relatives, and it resulted in registration of the crime and due to intervention of well wishers of both the parties, the dispute is resolved and the original relationship has been restored, then the court must always honour such settlement and promote harmony that has been restored in the family and even if non compoundable offences have been incorporated, in order to achieve that object, the court must invoke the power under Section 482 of the Code and quash the proceedings. Further, it is also settled law that the court must always be slow in quashing the proceedings at the initial stage of investigation unless the court is satisfied that no purpose will be served by proceeding with the case and there is no possibility of conviction and the interest of justice requires quashing at that stage. 7. In view of the above decision and also considering the fact that the dispute is between the relatives and that has been resulted in the registration of crime and that has been settled between the parties due to intervention of mediators 5 Crl.M.C.No.3766 of 2014 and well wishers and their family relationship has been restored and harmony has been brought in the family and there is no possibly of conviction even if ultimately the final report is filed, this Court feels that it is a fit case where power under Section 482 of the Code has to be invoked to quash the proceedings in order to promote settlement which resulted in harmony in the family and pendancy of this case should not be a hurdle for the same. So the petition is allowed and further proceedings in Crime No.109/2014 of East Kallada Police Station as against the petitioners is quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kollam so as to inform the concerned police station for further necessary action in this regard. With the above directions and observations this petition is disposed of. **Sd/K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.** cl /true copy/ P.S to Judge Crl.M.C.No.3766 of 2014 6