High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2017-02-13Petition allowed; proceedings quashed; FIR quas...

P.Santhosh Pandy @ Santhosh Lakshmy and others v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No.1181 of 2017

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date: 2017-02-13
Court Decision / Holding: The Court allowed the petition under Section 482 CrPC, quashing the FIR in Crime No.54/2017 and the associated proceedings. It directed the release of the 4th petitioner from custody forthwith, unless required in another case. The decision rests on the amicable settlement between the parties and the finding that the offences are not grave and that continuing proceedings would be a waste of time and contrary to the ends of justice.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; proceedings quashed; FIR quashed; 4th petitioner to be released if custody not required elsewhere.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

P.Santhosh Pandy @ Santhosh Lakshmy
Shanmuganathan
Poolayya
Manikumar L.
S.Pushpalatha
Pandi Narayanan
Eswari Pulayya
Maniammal
Jagadeesh R.
Selvakumar K.
Saravana Kumar K.
Aravind
Mani Bharathy

Respondents

R. Raja
Robins
Chelladurai
M. Raja
Sudha
Kanniamma
Pappa
Rajendran
Thirupathi
Haridas
Arumugam
State of Kerala, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri S. Renjith
• Sri K.R. Prathish

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Babu S. Nair
• Sri E.C. Bineesh

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.MC.No.1181 of 2017) filed before the Kerala High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash criminal proceedings arising from Crime No.54/2017 of Vellathooval Police Station, Idukki. The petition, filed by thirteen petitioners (petitioners 1–13), challenges FIR no.54/2017 alleging offences under IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 294B, 326, 308, 324, 427 read with 149. The petition is anchored on an amicable settlement between the parties, with affidavits from respondents 1–11 indicating a desire to live in peace and harmony following the rival registration of Crime Nos.53 and 54/2017, both involving plantation labourers. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations, but noted the petitioners lack criminal antecedents. The court reiterates the well-settled principle from Gian Singh v. State of Punjab that a High Court may quash proceedings where a settlement between victim and wrongdoer serves the ends of justice and where continuing the proceedings would amount to abuse of process or be futile. The court concludes the offenses are not grave and quashes the proceedings, directing release of the 4th petitioner in custody, if not required elsewhere. The order, dated 13 February 2017, thus ends the criminal case against the petitioners.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 294B, 326, 308, 324, 427 read with 149

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ends of justice
Amicable settlement / compromise between victim and wrongdoer to terminate criminal proceedings (Gian Singh principle)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that a settlement has been arrived at between the rival factions in Cr. Nos. 53/2017 and 54/2017 at Vellathooval, and the parties, being plantation labourers, prefer to live in peace. They contend that continuing a potentially futile prosecution would waste time and resources and would undermine the ends of justice, particularly since there are affidavits from respondents acknowledging the amicable settlement and their willingness to move forward. They rely on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab for the proposition that the High Court may quash proceedings in appropriate cases where a settlement between victim and wrongdoer serves the ends of justice.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor notes the reservations and stresses caution but states that the petitioners have no prior criminal antecedents. While conceding the possibility of settlement, the respondents’ counsel does not outline a detailed opposition in the present order and leaves room for the High Court to determine whether quashing aligns with justice. The court, however, ultimately adopts the Gian Singh framework to assess whether continuing proceedings would be unfair or abusive in light of the settlement.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	[(2012) 10 SCC 303]	Positive	Cited as the leading authority that High Courts may quash criminal proceedings on the basis of an amicable settlement if continuation would violate the ends of justice.

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 P.Santhosh Pandy @ Santhosh Lakshmy and others 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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/24TH MAGHA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 1181 of 2017 ---------------------------** **CRIME NO. 54/2017 OF VELLATHOOVAL POLICE STATION, IDUKKI** **....** **PETITIONER(S): -------------** **1. P.SANTHOSH PANDY @ SANTHOSH LAKSHMY, AGED 31, S/O.NARAYANAN PANDY, H.NO.IV/502, COLONY, PALLIVASAL P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT.** **2. SHANMUGANATHAN, AGED 42, S/O.RAJU, LAKSHMI HARIJAN COLONY, ANAVIRATTY VILLAGE, MUNNAR P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT.** **3. POOLAYYA, AGED 43, S/O.RAJ, LAKSHMI HARIJAN COLONY, ANAVIRATTY VILLAGE, MUNNAR P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT.** **4. MANIKUMAR L., AGED 33, S/O.LAKSMANAN, NULLATHANNI, NADAAYAR, MUNNAR, KANNAN DEVAN HILLS, MUNNAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT.** **5. S.PUSHPALATHA, AGED 42, W/O.R.SHANMUGANATHAN, LAKSHMI HARIJAN COLONY, ANAVIRATTY VILLAGE, MUNNAR P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT.** **6. PANDI NARAYANAN, AGED 64, S/O.NARAYANAN, LAKSHMI HARIJAN COLONY, ANAVIRATTY VILLAGE, MUNNAR P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT.** **7. ESWARI PULAYYA, AGED 42, W/O.PULAYYA, LAKSHMI HARIJAN COLONY, ANAVIRATTY VILLAGE, MUNNAR P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT.** **8. MANIAMMAL, AGED , W/O.MAHARAJA, LAKSHMI COLONY, LAKSHMY ESTATE, MUNNAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT.** **Msv/** **-2-** **-2-** **Crl.MC.No. 1181 of 2017** ## **------------------------** **9. JAGADEESH R., AGED 32, S/O.S.RAJ, LAKSHMI HARIJAN COLONY, ANAVIRATTY VILLAGE, MUNNAR P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT.** **10. SELVAKUMAR K., AGED 46, S/O.KARUPPASAMU, SOUTH DIVISION, LETCHMI ESTATE, MUNNAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT.** **11. SARAVANA KUMAR K., AGED 33, S/O.KANNAN, 1351/VII, MIDDLE DVN, LAKSHMI ESTATE, KANNAN DEVAN HILLS, MUNNAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT.** **12. ARAVIND AGED 28, S/O.RAJAN, 14/405, LAKSHMI ESTATE, MUNNAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT.** **13. MANI BHARATHY, AGED 26, S/O.MADASWAMY, SOUTH DIVISION, LAKSHMI ESTATE, MUNNAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.S.RENJITH** **SRI.K.R.PRATHISH** **RESPONDENT(S):** ## **--------------** **1. R.RAJA, AGED 29, S/O.RAJENDRAN, LAKSHMI ESTATE KARA, LAKSHMI HARIJAN COLONY, ANAVIRATTY VILLAGE, MUNNAR P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 613.** **2. ROBINS, AGED 32, S/O.ANTHONI SWAMI, VELLAI PILLAYAR THOTTAM, VEERAPANDI THERUVU, PALLADAM ROAD, THIRIPUR - 622 502.** **3. CHELLADURAI, AGED 29, S/O.GANESAN, VELLAI PILLAYAR THOTTAM, VEERAPANDI THERUVU, PALLADAM ROAD, THIRIPUR - 622 502.** **4. M.RAJA, AGED 30, S/O.MUKKAYYA, VELLAI PILLAYAR THOTTAM, VEERAPANDI THERUVU, PALLADAM ROAD, THIRIPUR - 622 502.** **5. SUDHA, W/O.RAJA, AGED 26, LAKSHMI ESTATE KARA, LAKSHMI HARIJAN COLONY, ANAVERATTY VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI - 685 613.** **msv/** **-3-** **-3-** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1181 of 2017** ## **------------------------** **6. KANNIAMMA, AGED 46, W/O.RAJENDRAN, LAKSHMI ESTATE KARA, LAKSHMI HARIJAN COLONY, ANAVERATTY VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI - 685 613.** **7. PAPPA, AGED 50, W/O.MAYAN, LAKSHMI ESTATE KARA, LAKSHMI HARIJAN COLONY, ANAVERATTY VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI - 685 613.** **8. RAJENDRAN, AGED 51, S/O.NAGATHEVAR, LAKSHMI ESTATE KARA, LAKSHMI HARIJAN COLONY, ANAVERATTY VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI - 685 613.** **9. THIRUPATHI, AGED 44, S/O.KARUPPAYYA, LAKSHMI ESTATE KARA, LAKSHMI HARIJAN COLONY, ANAVERATTY VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI - 685 613.** **10. HARIDAS, AGED 65, S/O.SANKARAN, LAKSHMI ESTATE KARA, LAKSHMI HARIJAN COLONY, ANAVERATTY VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI - 685 613.** **11. ARUMUGAM, AGED 39, S/O.KARUPPAYYA, LAKSHMI ESTATE KARA, LAKSHMI HARIJAN COLONY, ANAVERATTY VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI - 685 613.** **12. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.** - **R1-R4 BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR R12 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.E.C.BINEESH** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **msv/** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1181 of 2017 ------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES -------------------------** |**ANNEXURE-A1:**<br>**COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.54/2017 OF**| |---| |**VELLATHOOVAL POLICE STATION.**| |**ANNEXURE-A2(a): AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.**| |**ANNEXURE-A2(b): AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.**| |**ANNEXURE-A2(c): AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.**| |**ANNEXURE-A2(d): AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.**| |**ANNEXURE-A2(e): AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.**| |**ANNEXURE-A2(f): AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.**| |**ANNEXURE-A2(g): AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT.**| |**ANNEXURE-A2(h): AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT.**| |**ANNEXURE-A2(i): AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 9TH RESPONDENT.**| |**ANNEXURE-A2(j): AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 10TH RESPONDENT.**| |**ANNEXURE-A2(k): AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 11TH RESPONDENT.**| |**RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURE**| |**-----------------------**| **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S.TO JUDGE** **Msv/** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.1181 of 2017 ----------------------------------------Dated this the 13[th] day of February, 2017** ## **O R D E R** - 1.This petition is filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') with a prayer to invoke the extraordinary inherent powers and to quash the pending criminal proceedings. - 2.On the basis of an FIR lodged by the 1[st] respondent, Crime No.54 of 2017 of the Vellathooval Police Station was registered against the petitioners herein and investigation was taken up for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294b, 326, 308, 324, 427 read with 149 of the IPC. - 3.The prosecution allegation is that on 22.1.2017, the petitioners herein formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object assaulted the party respondents and caused bodily injuries. - 4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that in respect of an incident which occurred on Crl.M.C.1181/2017 2 22.1.2017, based on rival versions Crime Nos.53 of 2017 and 54 of 2017 of Vellathooval Police Station were registered. According to the counsel, the accused in both the cases are plantation laborers and during the pendency of the proceedings, they have decided to settle all their mutual differences and to live in peace and harmony. The learned counsel appearing for the parties submits that in view of the resolution of the disputes, the proceedings before the criminal court is a futile exercise. Much reliance is placed on the affidavits sworn to by the respondents 1 to 11, to buttress their submissions . - 5.The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions expresses her reservations in the matter. However it is submitted that the petitioners are not persons with criminal antecedents. - 6.I have considered the submissions. - 7.The position with regard to quashing of proceedings on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties is by now well settled. In **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab** [(2012) 10 SCC 303] Apex Court has laid down that in appropriate cases, Crl.M.C.1181/2017 3 the High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. It was observed as follows : “61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.” 8.The offence committed by the petitioners cannot be said to be grave and serious having ingredients of extreme mental depravity. It also does not appear that the offence in this case will have a serious impact on the society. It is felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and secure the ends of justice. Even otherwise, persisting with the prosecution would be nothing but a waste of time as the prospects of conviction would be bleak. Crl.M.C.1181/2017 4 9.Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court will be well justified in invoking its extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings. In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A1 FIR in Crime No.54 of 2017 of the Vellathooval Police Station and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners are quashed. It is submitted that the 4[th] petitioner is undergoing incarceration after being arrested in the instant Crime. In view of the quashment of proceedings, he shall be released forthwith, unless his custody is required in any other case. **Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE** vps