High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-08-26FIRs and further proceedings quashed; petitions...

RadhaKrishnan T. et al. v. State of Kerala (Crl.M.C. Nos. 3580 of 2020) and Santosh Kumar v. State of Kerala (Crl.M.C. No. 3631 of 2020)

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C. No. 3580 of 2020 (and Crl.M.C. No. 3631 of 2020)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: V.G. Arun
Judgment Date: 2020-08-26
Court Decision / Holding: The FIRs and further proceedings in Crime Nos. 81 of 2020 and 82 of 2020 are quashed; Crl.M.C Nos. 3580 of 2020 and 3631 of 2020 are allowed.
Final Disposition: FIRs and further proceedings quashed; petitions allowed; cases disposed of accordingly.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

RadhaKrishnan T., Rajesh, Rajeev T., Balakrishnan
Santosh Kumar

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, Kochi 682 031
Balakrishnan s/o NarayanEzuthachan, Malappuram District (in Crl.M.C. No. 3631/2020)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Sri. Sojan Micheal
• Adv. Sri Antony Robert Dias

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
• Adv. Sojan Micheal (for Balakrishnan in 3631/2020)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This judgment from the Kerala High Court, sitting in a single-judge bench led by Justice V.G. Arun, disposes of two criminal miscellaneous petitions (Crl.M.C. Nos. 3580 of 2020 and 3631 of 2020) arising from Melattoor Police Station crimes 81/2020 and 82/2020. The petitioners in 3580/2020 are RadhaKrishnan T., Rajesh, Rajeev T., and Balakrishnan; the petitioner in 3631/2020 is Santosh Kumar. The offenses cited include IPC sections 323, 324, 294(b), and 506 r/w 34. The respondents include the State of Kerala through the Public Prosecutor and the de facto complainants; in the second petition Balakrishnan is linked with the second respondent, with separate representation. The core dispute is a water-pumping disagreement over agricultural land, which allegedly escalated into criminal proceedings. Affidavits from the de facto complainants confirm that the disputes have been amicably settled and no subsisting grievance remains. The Public Prosecutor notes lack of criminal antecedents. The court, after weighing the gravity of the offenses and the settlement, concludes that continued proceedings would amount to abuse of process and that there is no public interest in continuing the prosecutions. Relying on Madan Mohan Abbot and Gian Singh, the court quashes the FIRs and all further proceedings, allowing the petitions.

Provisions of Law Cited

IPC 323IPC 324IPC 294(b)IPC 506 r/w 34

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Abuse of process of court
No public interest in continuing criminal proceedings where dispute is settled
Settlement between parties in criminal cases can justify quashing of FIRs

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners sought quashing of the FIRs on the ground that the dispute over water pumping to their lands has been amicably settled, with no subsisting grievance, and continued proceedings would constitute abuse of process of court. They relied on the principle that where there is no public interest and where settlements have been reached, FIRs can be quashed, citing Madan Mohan Abbot and Gian Singh to support relief.

Contentions of Respondents

The State and de facto complainants submitted affidavits asserting the dispute has been settled and there is no ongoing grievance; the Public Prosecutor highlighted the gravity of the offences and the need to consider public interest, but acknowledged the settlement and lack of antecedents as factors in favor of quashing.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab	(2008) 4 SCC 582	Positive	Court relied on the principle that settlement and absence of public interest permit quashing of FIRs under abuse of process of court.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another	(2012) 10 SCC 303	Positive	Cited to reinforce the settled-dispute quashing doctrine and the irrelevance of prosecution continuation where no public interest is involved.

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 RadhaKrishnan T. et al. v. State of Kerala (Crl.M.C. Nos. 3580 of 2020) and Santosh Kumar v. State of Kerala (Crl.M.C. No. 3631 of 2020) 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** **WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 4TH BHADRA, 1942 Crl.MC.No.3580 OF 2020(F)** **CRIME NO.81/2020 OF Melattur Police Station , Malappuram** ## **PETITIONER/S:** |**1**|**RADHAKRISHNAN T.,**| |---|---| ||**AGED 54 YEARS**| ||**S/O. KUNHAN EZHUTHACHAN THUVATTUTHODI (HOUSE),**| ||**CHEMMANTHATTA, MELATTUR,**| ||**MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 679 326.**| |**2**|**RAJESH.,**| ||**AGED 46 YEARS**| ||**S/O. KUNHAN EZHUTHACHAN,**| ||**THUVATTUTHODI (HOUSE), CHEMMANTHATTA, MELATTUR,**| ||**MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 679 326.**| |**3**|**RAJEEV.T.,**| ||**AGED 38 YEARS**| ||**S/O. KUNHAN EZHUTHACHAN,**| ||**THUVATTUTHODI (HOUSE), CHEMMANTHATTA,**| ||**MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 679 326.**| |**4**|**BALAKRISHNAN,**| ||**AGED 71 YEARS**| ||**S/O. NARAYANEZHUTHACHAN**| ||**THUVATTUTHODI (HOUSE), CHEMMANTHATTA,**| ||**MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 679 326.**| ## **BY ADV. SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM , KOCHI 682 031.** ## **Crl.M.C. No.3580 & 3631 of 2020** 2 **2 SANTHOSHKUMAR S/O. LATE RAMACHANDRAN, THUVATTUTHODIKA (HOUSE), CHEMMANTHATTA, MELATTUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 679 326.** **R2 BY ADV. ANTONY ROBERT DIAS** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.08.2020, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.3631/2020(D), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.M.C. No.3580 & 3631 of 2020** 3 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 4TH BHADRA, 1942** **Crl.MC.No.3631 OF 2020(D)** **CRIME NO.82/2020 OF Melattur Police Station , Malappuram** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **SANTHOSH KUMAR AGED 45 YEARS S/O.LATE RAMACHANDRAN THUVATTU THODIKA (HOUSE) CHEMMANTHATTA, MELATTUR MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. PIN-679 326.** **BY ADV. SRI.ANTONY ROBERT DIAS** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031. 2 BALAKRISHNAN S/O.NARAYANEZHUTHACHAN, AGED 70 YEARS, THUVATTUTHODIKA (HOUSE) CHEMMANTHATTA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679 326. R2 BY ADV. SOJAN MICHEAL** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SR.PP.T.R.RENJITH AND PP SREEJA V.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.08.2020, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.3580/2020(F), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **Crl.M.C. No.3580 & 3631 of 2020** 4 ## **ORDER** Dated this the 26[th] day of August **,** 2020 **Petitioners in Crl.M.C No.3580 of 2020 are the accused in Crime No.81 of 2020 registered at the Melattoor Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 294 (b), 506 r/w 34 of IPC. The petitioner in Crl.M.C No.3631 of 2020 is the accused in Crime No.82 of 2020 registered at the Melattoor Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 294 (b) of IPC. The crimes are registered based on a dispute regarding pumping of water to the agricultural lands of the petitioner's and the party respondents in both cases, who are the de facto complainants and the accused in the crimes. Affidavits have been filed by the party respondents stating that the dispute which led to registration of the crimes has been settled** **Crl.M.C. No.3580 & 3631 of 2020** 5 **amicably and they have no subsisting grievance in the matter.** **2. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also, who, on instructions, submits that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents.** **3. Having considered the gravity of the offences alleged, nature of the injury caused and having perused the affidavits filed by the de facto complainants and the injured arrayed as party respondents in the Crl.M.Cs, the contents of which are submitted to be true and voluntary, I am satisfied that the dispute is settled and that no public interest is involved in this matter. 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** ## **Crl.M.C. No.3580 & 3631 of 2020** 6 **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.** **In the result, these Crl.M.C are allowed. The FIRs and further proceedings in Crime Nos.81 of 2020 and 82 of 2020 are quashed.** **Sd/V.G.ARUN JUDGE** Scl/26.08 **Crl.M.C. No.3580 & 3631 of 2020** ## 7 ## **APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 3580/2020** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CRIME NO. 81/2020 OF MELATTOOR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT DATED 14.03.2020.** **ANNEXURE II AFFIDAVIT DATED 22.07.2020 SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** ## **Crl.M.C. No.3580 & 3631 of 2020** ## 8 ## **APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 3631/2020** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CRIME NO. 82/2020 OF MELATTOOR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT DATED 15.03.2020.** **ANNEXURE II AFFIDAVIT DATED 22.07.2020 SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.**