Rakesh M.R. and Others v. State of Kerala and Others

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
Judgment Date: 2016-11-03
Court Decision / Holding: The High Court allowed the petition under Section 482 CrPC, quashing the final report and proceedings in CC 1360/2015 against the petitioners, citing ends of justice, the amicable settlement between victim and accused, and the relatively less grave nature of the offences.
Final Disposition: Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Rakesh M.R
Vinesh M.R
SUEMSH
MAHESH
SHARATH
VIJITH
VIMESH

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Mannuthy Police Station (Thrissur District) through the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Vijesh
Kirithesu
Kiran

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri Vinay Ramdas

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor Sri T.R. Renjith
• Sri Vishnuprasad Nair

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court matter under Section 482 CrPC concerns Crl.M.C. No. 6528 of 2016, challenging CC 1360/2015 in the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-III, Thrissur. Accused Nos. 1–7 (Rakesh M.R., Vinesh M.R, Suemsh, Mahesh, Sharath, Vijith, Vimesh) are alleged to have, on 2.3.2015 at about 5:15 p.m., in furtherance of their common intention, restrained respondents 2–4 and assaulted them, causing injuries, under IPC sections 341, 323, 324, 294(b) read with 34. The petition asserts that the dispute has been amicably resolved and that continuing the proceedings would offend ends of justice and promote peace. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about quashing; however, the petition relies on Supreme Court authority (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab) that High Courts may quash in appropriate cases where there is a settlement between victim and accused. The Court noted the offences are not grave and that continuing prosecution would waste time; it allowed the petition and quashed the final report and proceedings in CC 1360/2015. The decision emphasizes ends of justice, avoidance of abuse of process, and the utility of amicable settlements to terminate proceedings when appropriate.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)Sections 341, 323, 324, 294(b) read with Section 34 of the IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ends of justice
Abuse of process of law
Amicable settlement / compromise as a valid basis to quash proceeding in appropriate cases

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petition on behalf of the accused (petitioners) contends that the dispute with the victims is personal in nature and has been settled amicably, with affidavits supporting the settlement. It argues that quashing the criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC would serve the ends of justice, prevent abuse of process, and promote peace. It asserts that the offences, while serious, do not exhibit extreme depravity and that continuation would be a waste of time given the settlement and lack of public interest in pursuing a prolonged prosecution.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents’ position is that quashing solely on the basis of settlement may undermine justice and public interest. The State contends that the invocation of extraordinary powers under Section 482 CrPC in this context is not warranted and that the court should not prematurely terminate proceedings that have potential implications beyond the private dispute, even where a settlement exists.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	(2012) 10 SCC 303	Positive	Apex Court held that High Courts may quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases where there is an amicable settlement between the victim and the accused, to secure ends of justice and prevent abuse of process.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	(2014) 6 SCC 466	Positive	Reiterated the ends of justice and anti-abuse-of-process rationale for quashing proceedings where settlement exists, guiding the present decision.

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 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/12TH KARTHIKA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 6528 of 2016** **-------------------------** **CC 1360/2015 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III,THRISSUR CRIME NO. 573/2015 OF MANNUTHY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR** **------------------** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1-7:** **-------------------------** ## **1. RAKESH M.R,** - **AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.RAJAN, MULLAMTHANATHU VEEDU, KACHITHODU VEEDU, MADAKATHARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR.** **2. VINESH M.R,** - **AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.RAJAN,** - **MULLAMTHANATHU VEEDU, KACHITHODU VEEDU, MADAKATHARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR.** **3. SUEMSH,** - **AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.RAJAN, KALLAYIL VEEDU, VARIKULAM DESOM, MADAKATHARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR.** **4. MAHESH,** - **AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.MANI, KALLAYIL VEEDU, KACHITHODU DESOM, MADAKATHARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR.** **5. SHARATH,** - **AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.MOHANAN, KOTTAKUNNATHU HOUSE, VARIKULAM DESOM, MADAKATHARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR.** **6. VIJITH,** - **AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.SASI, MULANTHANTH HOUSE, KACHITHODU DESOM, MADAKATHARA DESOM, THRISSUR.** **7. VIMESH, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.DASAN, KALLAYIL VEEDU, VARIKULAM DESOM, MADAKATHARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.VINAY RAMDAS** **-2CRL.M.C.NO.6528 OF 2016:** ## **------------------------** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT AND WITNESSES:** **-----------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANNUTHY POLICE STATION(THRISSUR DISTRICT) THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** ## **2. VIJESH,** - **AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.VIJAYAN, MUDDAPILLYIL HOUSE, NINNUKUZHI DESOM, MADAKATHARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR.** ## **3. KIRITHESU,** - **AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.SUJANAN, MANAKAVALLAPIL HOUSE, NINNUKUZHI DESOM, MADAKATHARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR.** ## **4. KIRAN,** - **AGED 18 YEARS, S/O.SUJANAN, MANAKAVALLAPPIL HOUSE, NINNUKUZHI DESOM, MADAKATHARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI T.R.RENJITH R2,TO R4, BY ADV. SRI.VISHNUPRASAD NAIR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **K.V.** ## **Crl.MC.No. 6528 of 2016 ()** ## **---------------------------** **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES -----------------------ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT MADE BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29.03.2015.** **ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT DATED 19.05.2015. ANNEXURE A3 THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT MADE BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25.08.2016.** **ANNEXURE A4 THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT MADE BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THAT EFFECT DATED 25.08.2016. ANNEXURE A5 THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT MADE BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 25.08.2016.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES NIL ------------------------** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **K.V.** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.6528 of 2016** ## **----------------------------------------Dated this the 3[rd] day of November, 2016** ## **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.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 to 7 in C.C.No.1360 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-III, Thrissur. They stand indicted for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 294(b) read with Section 34 of the IPC. - 3.The prosecution allegation is that on 2.3.2015 at 5.15 p.m., the petitioners herein in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained the respondents - 2 to 4 and thereafter assaulted them causing injuries. Crl.M.C.6528/2016 2 ## 4.Heard the submissions advanced. - 5.The learned counsel appearing for the party respondents submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. Attention of this Court is invited to the affidavits filed by them to buttress their submission. It is urged that the dispute is purely personal in nature and would not affect public peace or tranquility. Summing up it is prayed that the criminal proceedings be terminated to promote peace and harmony. - 6.The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions has expressed his reservations in the matter of quashing the proceedings on the basis of settlement. It is submitted that the invocation of powers under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is not warranted. However, it is submitted that no other cases are reported against the petitioners. - 7.I have considered the submissions . - 8.In **Gian singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303)** Crl.M.C.6528/2016 3 Apex Court has laid down that in appropriate cases, 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.”_ 9.The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court ## in **Narinder singh v. State of Punjab. (2014) 6 SCC** **466,** the pertinent observations which are as under: _XXXXXXXXXXXX_ _29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:_ Crl.M.C.6528/2016 4 _(i) ends of justice, or_ _(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives._ _xxxxxxx_ _xxxxxxx_ 10.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. 11.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. 5 Crl.M.C.6528/2016 In the result, this petition will stand allowed. AnnexureA2 final report and proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners in C.C.No.1360 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-III, Thrissur, are quashed. **Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE** vps