High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-02-26CRL.M.C. allowed; proceedings in CC 664/2018 an...

PRABOTH and others v. STATE OF KERALA and CW1 to CW12

Case / Petition Number:CRL.M.C.NO.855 OF 2021

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: V.G. Arun
Judgment Date: 2021-02-26
Court Decision / Holding: The Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure A-II Final Report in CC No.664/2018 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Neyyattinkara, and the further proceedings in Crime No.383/2013 are quashed.
Final Disposition: CRL.M.C. allowed; proceedings in CC 664/2018 and Crime No.383/2013 quashed; criminal proceedings against petitioners abated.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

PRABOTH
AJIKUMAR
PRAVEEN
SATHEESH KUMAR
SANALKUMAR
SHYJU
AJAYAKRISHNAN
SANTHOSH
SHYAMLAL
VISWANATHAN
SAJI
ANILKUMAR
JYOTHISH KUMAR
KRISHNAMOORTHY
BINU
JOHNY
ASOK
PRAMOD KUMAR
SUNILKUMAR
ANEESH

Respondents

STATE OF KERALA represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
SREEKANDAN NADAR @ MANIYAN
STENCILAS
CHRISTUDAS
LAZAR
APPU
SUDHAKARAN
CHRISTUDAS
VIKRAMAN
BABU NADAR
GOPI
LUKOSE
SUJAN

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Sri. V. Vijulal

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. R.T. Pradeep (for Respondents 2 to 13)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court Criminal Miscellaneous Case (CRL.M.C.No.855 of 2021) challenging the order/judgment in CC No.664/2018 and Crime No.383/2013 registered with Parassala Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. Twenty petitioners (A1–A20) sought quashing of criminal proceedings on grounds of amicable settlement with the independent witnesses CW1–CW12 and absence of public interest in continuing the prosecution. The respondents (state and CW1–CW12) submitted affidavits (Annexures I–XIV) stating that the dispute which triggered the incident has been resolved amicably and that they harbor no subsisting grievance against the petitioners; the Public Prosecutor also indicated the petitioners have no criminal antecedents. The Court, after considering the nature and gravity of the alleged offences (Sections 143, 145, 147, 148, 149 & 153A of IPC), the affidavits, and the absence of public interest in continuation, found that the settlement has brought peace in the area and the likelihood of conviction is remote. Relying on Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008) 4 SCC 582 and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, the High Court held there is no impediment to granting relief. The petition is allowed and the proceedings in CC No.664/2018 and Crime No.383/2013 are quashed, quelling the criminal process against the petitioners.

Provisions of Law Cited

IPC Sections 143, 145, 147, 148, 149 & 153A

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Abuse of process of the court
Settlement of disputes can justify quashing criminal proceedings when no public interest is involved

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners urged quashing of the criminal proceedings under the 482 CrPC on the ground that the dispute leading to the offence has been amicably settled with the independent witnesses CW1–CW12, and there is no public interest in continuing the prosecution. They highlighted affidavits (Annexures III–XIV) stating consent to quash and asserted that the settlement has secured peace in the area, reducing the likelihood of conviction and avoiding abuse of process of law.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents contended, via affidavits and the Public Prosecutor, that the dispute with the witnesses has been resolved amicably and there is no subsisting grievance against the petitioners. They argued that the matter bears upon a private settlement and witnesses’ consent supports quashing; however, the court’s primary role is to assess public interest and whether continued proceedings serve justice.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab	(2008) 4 SCC 582	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that continued criminal proceedings can be quashed in the presence of amicable settlement and absence of public interest.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another	(2012) 10 SCC 303	Positive	Cited as authoritative guidance confirming quashing where settlement removes public interest in prosecuting.

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 PRABOTH and others v. STATE OF KERALA and CW1 to CW12 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 V.G.ARUN** **FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1942** ## **Crl.MC.No.855 OF 2021(F)** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 664/2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,NEYYATTINKARA** **CRIME NO.383/2013 OF PARASSALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED (A1) TO (A20):** |**1**|**PRABOTH**| |---|---| ||**AGED 38 YEARS**| ||**S/O. GANGADHARAN, GANGOTHRI VEEDU, NEAR BY MUTTAVILA**| ||**BRIDGE, MACHIYODE DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.**| |**2**|**AJIKUMAR**| ||**AGED 30 YEARS**| ||**S/O. RAJENDRAN, PLANKAVILA VEEDU, MUTTAVILA,**| ||**MACHIYODE DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.**| |**3**|**PRAVEEN**| ||**AGED 20 YEARS**| ||**S/O. BALACHANDRAN, THOOTHAVILA VEEDU, VLATHANKARA,**| ||**MACHIYODE DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.**| |**4**|**SATHEESH KUMAR**| ||**AGED 23 YEARS**| ||**S/O. RATNAKARAN, VALIYAVILA VEEDU, KEEZHMAKAM DESO,**| ||**CHENKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.**| |**5**|**SANALKUMAR**| ||**AGED 41 YEARS**| ||**S/O. SREEDHARAN NADAR, GOKULAM VEEDU, CHATTUKAL,**| ||**VLATHANKARA, MACHIYODE DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.**| |**6**|**SHYJU**| ||**AGED 28 YEARS**| ||**S/O. GANGADHARAN, KALAYIL VEEDU, KARINCHIYOOR,**| ||**MACHIYODE DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.**| |**7**|**AJAYAKRISHNAN**| ||**AGED 22 YEARS**| ||**S/O. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, AKHILAKRISHNADAS BHAVAN,**| ||**PATTARUVILA, NEARBY AYIRA KULAM, AYIRA DESOM, KARODE**| CRL.M.C.NO.855 OF 2021 2 ## **VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **8 SANTHOSH** **AGED 30 YEARS S/O. KRISHNAN NADAR, CP 6/III, VLATHANKARA, MACHIYODE DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **9 SHYAMLAL** **AGED 42 YEARS** **S/O. GANGADHARAN NADAR, CHITHRA SADANAM, CP 6/332, VLATHANKARA, MACHIYODE DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **10 VISWANATHAN** **AGED 52 YEARS** **S/O. KOCHUKUNJAN NADAR, V.J. SADANATHIL, VADAKKU VANIYAKUDI, VLATHANKARA, MACHIYODE DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **11 SAJI** **AGED 34 YEARS** **S/O. RAGHAVAN, VANIYAKUDI VADAKKE VEEDU, CP 7.465, VLATHANKARA, MACHIYODE DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **12 ANILKUMAR** **AGED 47 YEARS** **S/O. APPUKUTTAN NADAR, SUDHEER BHAVAN, CP 6/349, VLATHANKARA, MACHIYODE DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **13 JYOTHISH KUMAR AGED 40 YEARS** **S/O. THANKAPPAN NADAR, KRISHNA COTTAGE, VLATHANKARA, MACHIYODE DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **14 KRISHNAMOORTHY AGED 43 YEARS** **S/O. VISWANATHAN, VISWANATHAVILASOM VEEDU, ALINGA MANNADI, CP 6/12, VLATHANKARA, MACHIYODE DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **15 BINU** **AGED 41 YEARS S/O. SUKUMARAN, SR BHAVAN, CP 6/389, VLATHANKARA, MACHIYODE DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** CRL.M.C.NO.855 OF 2021 3 - **16 JOHNY** **AGED 33 YEARS S/O. MUTHAYYAN, KANYAKAVU VEEDU, CP 6/415, VLATHANKARA, MACHIYODE DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **17 ASOK AGED 31 YEARS** - **S/O. RAVEENDRAN, KOTTATHINKARA VEEDU, VLATHANKARA, MACHIYODE DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **18 PRAMOD KUMAR AGED 40 YEARS** - **S/O THOBIYAS NADAR, KODITHARAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, CP 6/158, VLATHANKARA, MACHIYODE DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **19 SUNILKUMAR, AGED 38 YEARS** - **S/O. PACHAN NADAR, KARINCHOORU KALAI VEEDU, VLATHANKARA, MACHIYODE DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **20 ANEESH AGED 34 YEARS** **S/O. GANESAN, KODITHARAVILA VEEDU, CP 6/158, VLATHANKARA, MACHIYODE DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **BY ADV. SRI.V.VIJULAL** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & CW1 TO CW12:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.** - **2 SREEKANDAN NADAR @ MANIYAN AGED 50 YEARS** - **S/O CHELLAPPAN NADAR, VALIYAVEETTU VILAKOM, MACHIYODE, MACHIYODE DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, CHENKAL P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 132.** - **3 STENCILAS AGED 54 YEARS** **S/O SATHYANESAN, HOLY MERGIN SADANAM, VLATHANKARA, MACHIYODE DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, CHENKAL P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 132.** CRL.M.C.NO.855 OF 2021 4 - **4 CHRISTUDAS** **AGED 58 YEARS** **S/O CHELLAYYAN, VLATHANKARA VEETTIL, MACHIYODE DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, CHENKAL P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 132.** - **5 LAZAR** **AGED 66 YEARS** **S/O SABARIMUTHAN, MANNADI VEETTIL, UTHRAMKATTU, MACHIYODE DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, CHENKAL P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 132.** ## **6 APPU** **AGED 60 YEARS** **S/O SUBBAYYAN, MAVILA VEETTIL, VLATHANKARA, MACHIYODE DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, CHENKAL P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 132.** - **7 SUDHAKARAN** **AGED 52 YEARS** **S/O KRISHNAN NADAR, SN BHAVAN, ELANGAMOOLA, MACHIYODE DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, CHENKAL P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 132.** - **8 CHRISTUDAS AGED 43 YEARS** **S/O YAGAPPAN, KARIVARAMBU VEETTIL, NEAR BY SREEKRISHNASWAMY TEMPLE, VLATHANKARA, MACHIYODE DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, CHENKAL P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 132.** - **9 VIKRAMAN AGED 50 YEARS** **S/O THANKAYYAN NADAR, PERIYA VEETTIL, VLATHANKARA, MACHIYODE DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, CHENKAL P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 132.** ## **10 BABU NADAR** **AGED 55 YEARS** **S/O KUNJUKRISHNAN VAIDYAN, PULININNAVILA VEETTIL, VLATHANKARA, MACHIYODE DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, CHENKAL P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 132.** ## **11 GOPI** **AGED 65 YEARS** **S/O SUBBAN, AYIVILA VEETTIL, VLATHANKARA, MACHIYODE DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, CHENKAL P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 132.** **12 LUKOSE** CRL.M.C.NO.855 OF 2021 5 **AGED 57 YEARS S/O SEBASTIAN, PAZHINJI VEETTIL, KARIYATHAM, KEEZHMAKOM, KEEZHAMAKOM DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, CHENKAL P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 132.** **13 SUJAN** **AGED 35 YEARS S/O DASAYYAN NADAR, SMITHA COTTAGE, KEEZHMAKOM, KEEZHMAKOM DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, CHENKAL P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 132.** **R2-13 BY ADV. R.T.PRADEEP** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** CRL.M.C.NO.855 OF 2021 6 ## **O R D E R** ## **Dated this the 26th day of February 2021** Petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 20 in Crime No.383/2013 registered at the Parassala Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram for offences punishable under Sections 143, 145, 147, 148, 149 & 153A of IPC, now pending as C.C.No.664/2018 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Court-II, Neyyattinkara. The Police suo moto registered the aforesaid Crime and independent witnesses, CW1 to CW12 are arrayed as the respondents Nos. 2 to 13 respectively. Annexure-AIII to Annexure-AXV affidavits have been filed by the respondents Nos.2 to 13, stating that the dispute, which was the reason for the incident and registration of the crime, has been resolved amicably and they have no subsisting grievance against the petitioners. 2. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also, who, on instructions, submits that the petitioners CRL.M.C.NO.855 OF 2021 7 have no criminal antecedents. 3. Having considered the gravity of the offences alleged, nature of the injury caused and having perused the affidavit filed by the respondents Nos.2 to 13, the contents of which are submitted to be true and voluntary, I am satisfied that the dispute is settled and no public interest is involved in this matter. The fact that the settlement has brought about peace in the area is taken into consideration. Moreover, in view of the settlement, possibility of the criminal proceedings ending in conviction is remote. As such, continuance of the proceedings will amount to an abuse of process of court and hence, in view of the legal position set out by the Honourable Supreme Court in _**Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab**_ [(2008) 4 SCC 582] and _**Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another**_ [(2012) 10 SCC 303], there is no impediment in granting the relief sought. In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. AnnexureA-II Final Report in C.C.No.664/2018 on the files of CRL.M.C.NO.855 OF 2021 8 Judicial First Class Magistrate, Court-II, Neyyattinkara and further proceedings in connection with Crime No.383/2013 of Parassala Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, are quashed. **Sd/-** **V.G.ARUN JUDGE** NB CRL.M.C.NO.855 OF 2021 9 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** |**ANNEXURE I**|**TRUE COPY OF F.I.R. DATED 29.3.2013 IN**| |---|---| ||**CRIME NO.383/2013 OF PARASSALA POLICE**| ||**STATION.**| |**ANNEXURE II**|**TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT DATED 16.9.2019**| ||**IN CRIME NO.383/2013 OF PARASSALA POLICE**| ||**STATION BEFORE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS**| ||**MAGISTRATE COURT-II, NEYYATTINKARA.**| |**ANNEXURE III**|**AFFIDAVIT CW1 DATED 24.1.2020 EXPRESSING**| ||**HIS UNEQUIVOCAL CONSENT TO QUASH THE**| ||**CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE**| ||**PETITIONERS.**| |**ANNEXURE IV**|**AFFIDAVIT OF CW2 DATED 24.1.2020 EXPRESSING**| ||**HIS UNEQUIVOCAL CONSENT TO QUASH THE**| ||**CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE**| ||**PETITIONERS.**| |**ANNEXURE V**|**AFFIDAVIT OF CW3 DATED 24.1.2020 EXPRESSING**| ||**HIS UNEQUIVOCAL CONSENT TO QUASH THE**| ||**CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE**| ||**PETITIONERS.**| |**ANNEXURE VI**|**AFFIDAVIT OF CW4 DATED 24.1.2020 EXPRESSING**| ||**HIS UNEQUIVOCAL CONSENT TO QUASH THE**| ||**CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE**| ||**PETITIONERS.**| |**ANNEXURE VII**|**AFFIDAVIT OF CW5 DATED 24.1.2020 EXPRESSING**| ||**HIS UNEQUIVOCAL CONSENT TO QUASH THE**| ||**CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE**| ||**PETITIONERS.**| |**ANNEXURE VIII**|**AFFIDAVIT OF CW6 DATED 24.1.2020 EXPRESSING**| ||**HIS UNEQUIVOCAL CONSENT TO QUASH THE**| ||**CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE**| ||**PETITIONERS.**| |**ANNEXURE IX**|**AFFIDAVIT OF CW7 DATED 24.1.2020 EXPRESSING**| ||**HIS UNEQUIVOCAL CONSENT TO QUASH THE**| ||**CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE**| ||**PETITIONERS.**| |**ANNEXURE X**|**AFFIDAVIT CW7 DATED 24.1.2020 EXPRESSING**| ||**HIS UNEQUIVOCAL CONSENT TO QUASH THE**| ||**CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE**| CRL.M.C.NO.855 OF 2021 10 ## **PETITIONERS.** ## **ANNEXURE XI** **AFFIDAVIT OF CW9 DATED 24.1.2020 EXPRESSING HIS EQUIVOCAL CONSENT TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS.** - **ANNEXURE XII AFFIDAVIT OF CW10 DATED 24.1.2020 EXPRESSING HIS UNEQUIVOCAL CONSENT TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS.** ## **ANNEXURE XIII** - **AFFIDAVIT OF CW11 DATED 24.1.2020 EXPRESSING HIS UNEQUIVOCAL CONSENT TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS.** ## **ANNEXURE XIV** - **AFFIDAVIT OF CW12 DATED 24.1.2020 EXPRESSING HIS UNEQUIVOCAL CONSENT TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL** TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE