High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-08-04Quashed final disposition per order

Rajesh and others v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:CRL.MC.No.4253 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
Judgment Date: 2016-08-04
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners, who are accused Nos. 1 to 7 in S.C.No.653 of 2013, are quashed.
Final Disposition: Quashed final disposition per order

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Rajesh
Ajesh
Vineesh
Korothan Shyju
Sijil
Sajith
Anirudh Das

Respondents

C.V Preethan
M.V.Chithrakumarr
Sub Inspector of Police, Kuthuparamba Police Station
State, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri Cibi Thomas

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri K.Praveen Kumar
• Public Prosecutor Sri Amjad Ali

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case (Crl.M.C. No. 4253 of 2016) decided by Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V on 4 August 2016. The petition seeks to invoke the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings arising from SC No. 653/2013 of the Addl. Assistant Sessions Court, Thalassery, which charges accused Nos. 1 to 7 with offences under IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 436 and 427 read with 149 IPC for mischief by fire at the Indiraji Cultural Center. The respondents include the de facto complainants (President and Secretary of the Center) and state authorities, with police officers named as respondents. The petition rests on the claim that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and there is no ongoing acrimony; it relies on Supreme Court guidance in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and subsequent cases (Narinder Singh and Yogendra Yadav) that, in appropriate circumstances, inherent powers under 482 CrPC may be exercised to quash proceedings even where a full trial might not advance public interest, particularly to prevent oppression and prejudice and to restore peace. The Public Prosecutor reportedly has no objections, and affidavits from the victims state no objection to termination. After careful scrutiny, the court finds the offence to be personal in nature and not affecting public tranquility, and concludes that quashing would serve broader community interests. The petition is therefore allowed, and all further proceedings against accused Nos. 1 to 7 are quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

CrPC Section 482CrPC Section 320IPC Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 436, 427 read with Section 149IPC Section 149

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Inherent powers of CrPC 482 to quash proceedings in appropriate circumstances (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab)
Gian Singh doctrine on quashing criminal proceedings in light of settlements
Guidelines from Gian Singh, Narinder Singh and Yogendra Yadav on out-of-court settlements

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that the dispute has been settled out of court and all issues resolved; there is no ongoing acrimony; the offence is personal in nature and does not affect public peace; quashing under Section 482 CrPC is warranted in light of Supreme Court guidance (Gian Singh and subsequent decisions) permitting quashing in appropriate cases of out-of-court settlement to prevent oppression and prejudice and to promote peace.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that there is no objection to quashing if appropriate under the settled law; the Public Prosecutor notes absence of other heinous cases against petitioners; affidavits from victims express no objection to termination; the court must balance public interest and the interests of the parties, but recognizes the Guidance from 482 CrPC jurisprudence permitting quashing in settlements.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 (4) KLT 108	Positive	Cited as controlling authority guiding quashing under the inherent powers of 482 CrPC in the context of out-of-court settlements.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr.	2014 (6) SCC 466	Positive	Cited as part of the line of cases supporting quashing in settlement scenarios.
Yogendra Yadav and others v State of Jharkhand	2014 (9) SCC 653	Positive	Cited to reinforce the principle allowing quashing where settlements exist and public interest is not compromised.

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 Rajesh 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** **THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/13TH SRAVANA, 1938** ## **Crl.MC.No. 4253 of 2016 ()** **--------------------------SC.NO. 653/2013 OF ADDL.ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY CRIME NO. 996/2012 OF KUTHUPARAMBA POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT** **---------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO. 1 TO 7: ---------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. RAJESH,** - **S/O.VASU, AGED 36 YEARS, THAZHE VEEDU, MANGATTIDOM P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.** **2. AJESH, S/O NANU, AGED 31 YEARS, N.S.NIVAS, MANGATTIDOM P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.** ## **3. VINEESH,** - **S/O BALAN, AGED 31 YEARS, MUDAPPACHAL HOUSE, MANGATTIDOM P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.** **4. KOROTHAN SHYJU,** - **S/O.POKKAN AGED 33 YEARS, KATTILE VALAPPU, MANGATTIDOM P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.** **5. SIJIL,S/O MUKUNDAN, AGED 26 YEARS, VADAKKEKKANDI HOUSE, MANGATTIDOM P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, (WRONGLY SHOWN IN THE CHARGE AS SHIJIN VADAKKEKKARAMMEL HOUSE)** **6. SAJITH, S/O NANU, AGED 33 YEARS, ERANHIPOYIL HOUSE, MANGATTIDOM P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.** **7. ANIRUDH DAS,** - **S/O HARIDAS, AGED 23 YEARS, HIRAN NIVAS, MANGATTIDOM P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS** **2/-** **-2-** **CRL.MC.NO.4253/2016** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/STATE:** **--------------------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. C.V PREETHAN,** - **S/O KUMARAN, AGED 46 YEARS, SREE NIVAS, MANGATTIDOM P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT-670 643.** ## **2. M.V.CHITHRAKUMAR,** - **S/O DASAN NAMBIAR, AGED 42 YEARS, M.C.HOUSE, MANGATTIDOM P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT-670 643.** **3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,** - **KUTHUPARAMBA POLICE STATION-670 643.** ## **4. STATE,** - **REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.** ## **R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR R3 & R4 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** **Crl.MC.No. 4253 of 2016 ()** ## **--------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:** ## **---------------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE I: TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE IN CR.NO.996/2012 OF KUTHUPARAMBA POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE II: TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND IST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS.** **ANNEXURE III: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE IST RESPONDENT.** **ANNEXURE IV: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:** ## **NIL** **------------------------------------------------** ## **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **sts** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V., J.** ------------------------------------------ ## **Crl.M.C. No.4253 of 2016** -----------------------------------------Dated this the 4[th] day of August, 2016 ## **O R D E R ~~~~~~~~** 1.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 to 7 in S.C.No.653 of 2013 of the Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Thalassery. They are charged for having committed offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 436 and 427 read with Section 149 of the IPC. The respondents 1 and 2 are the President and Secretary of the Indiraji Cultural Center and the mischief by fire was committed by the petitioners in the aforesaid center. - 2.The instant petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure banking on the ratio of the Judgment rendered by the Apex Court in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab** ( 2012 (4) KLT 108) and a series of Crl.M.C. No.4253 of 2016 **-2-** other cases which include **Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr. (2014) 6 SCC 466)** and **Yogendra Yadav and others V State of Jharkhand** (2014 (9) SCC 653 ) with a prayer to quash the above proceeding. - 3.The sole ground is that the Apex Court in the above judgments have delineated the circumstances and the cases in which inherent powers under Section 482 can be invoked _de hors_ section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for recognizing out of court settlement for the purpose of quashing criminal proceedings. It is prayed that powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be invoked to quash the criminal proceedings . - 4.It is submitted that the parties have reached an out of court settlement and there is no acrimony between them at present. All the disputes have been amicably resolved and they desire to live in peace and harmony. The Crl.M.C. No.4253 of 2016 **-3-** respondents 2 and 3 have sworn to separate affidavits wherein they assert that they have no objection in terminating the proceedings. - 5.The gist of the prosecution allegation is that on 2.8.2012 at 10.45 a.m., the petitioners formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and after trespassing into the office of the Indiraji Cultural Center committed mischief by fire. - 6.The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that no other cases of heinous nature are reported against the petitioners. - 7.I have bestowed my anxious consideration to the submissions made across the bar and I have also gone through the materials on record. - 8.The victims have sworn to separate affidavits wherein it is asserted that they have no objection in allowing the petition and in quashing the proceedings as all the disputes between the parties have been resolved and the Crl.M.C. No.4253 of 2016 **-4-** parties are living in peace and harmony . 9.It appears to me that the offence is entirely personal in nature and do not affect public peace or tranquility. It is also felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace. In a case such as the instant one, even if the prosecution is allowed to continue, it would not serve any purpose as the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. It can only result in putting the _de facto_ complainant and the accused to unwanted oppression and prejudice. Settlement will augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony. 10.I am of the view that this Court is well justified in quashing the impugned proceedings as the instant case falls within the matrix of guidelines issued by the Apex Court in **Gian Singh** (Supra) and the other cases referred to above. Crl.M.C. No.4253 of 2016 **-5-** In the result, this petition is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners, who are the accused Nos.1 to 7 in S.C.No.653 of 2013 of the Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Thalassery, are quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V. JUDGE** Ps/5/8/16