Ramakrishnan v. State of Kerala and Padmini

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date: 2017-02-06
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is allowed; the final report and all proceedings in CP 62/2016 before the Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class-II, Thrissur are quashed.
Final Disposition: Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Ramakrishnan

Respondents

State of Kerala
Padmini

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri I.V. Pramod

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor SMT. Rekha C. Nair
• Sri K.V. Sasidharan

Case Synopsis & Summary

Ramakrishnan, a 91-year-old petitioner, approached the Kerala High Court seeking exercise of the extraordinary inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash a pending criminal proceeding. The underlying matter relates to Crime No. 2191/2016 of the Thrissur Town West Police Station, which was investigated for offences under Sections 326 and 307 IPC and is pending as CP No. 62/2016 before the Judicial Magistrate of the 1st Class-II, Thrissur. The petitioner is the husband of the 2nd respondent, Padmini (aged around 85), and the couple have resided together for roughly 65 years and are parents to five children. The prosecution alleges that on 19.09.2016, at about 6:30 pm, the petitioner assaulted the 2nd respondent during a dispute over the key of an almirah, resulting in injuries. The petitioner contends that the dispute between the spouses has since been amicably settled and the parties are living in peace; continuing criminal proceedings would be a futile exercise and contrary to the ends of justice. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations, though acknowledged the lack of any criminal antecedents on the petitioner. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court notes that quashing can be ordered where settlement is genuine and would prevent abuse of process and advance ends of justice. After considering these factors, the Court allows the petition and quashes CP 62/2016 and the final report.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)Sections 326 and 307 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ends of justice
Abuse of process of law
Quashing in appropriate cases on amicable settlement (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab)
Prevention of abuse of process and securing ends of justice (Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner seeks invocation of the extraordinary powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the pending investigation and CP 62/2016, arising from Crime No. 2191/2016. The parties, long married for 65 years with five children, have resolved their domestic dispute amicably, and the couple are living peacefully. It is submitted that continuing proceedings would be futile, heavy-handed, and contrary to the ends of justice. The case is supported by the principle laid down in Gian Singh and Narinder Singh that a settlement between parties can justify quashing where it would not promote injustice or abuse of process, and quashing would secure ends of justice.

Contentions of Respondents

The State’s counsel acknowledged the elderly status of the parties and lack of criminal antecedents but expressed reservations about quashing. The argument emphasizes that the offences under IPC 326 and 307 involve injury and risk, and the matter warrants careful consideration to ensure that justice is not sacrificed. The Public Prosecutor’s position indicates that though settlement exists, the court must ensure that consequences of quashing do not undermine the integrity of the criminal process.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	(2012) 10 SCC 303	Positive	Held that High Courts can quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases upon amicable settlement to secure ends of justice and prevent abuse of process.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	(2014) 6 SCC 466	Positive	Restated guiding factors for quashing based on settlement, ends of justice, and avoidance of abuse of court processes.

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 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/17TH MAGHA, 1938** ## **Crl.MC.No. 686 of 2017** ## **-------------------------------------** ## **C.P.NO. 62/2016 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II,THRISSUR** ## **CRIME NO. 2191/2016 OF THRISSUR TOWN WEST POLICE STATION** ## **----------------** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :** **------------------------------------------** **RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY, AGED 91 YEARS, PALLIYIL HOUSE, PALLIYIL LANE, POOKUNNAM, THRISSUR.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.I.V.PRAMOD** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & COMPLAINANT :** **----------------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, COCHIN-682 031.** **2. PADMINI, W/O. RAMAKRISHNAN, AGED 85 YEARS, PALLIYIL HOUSE, PALLIYIL LANE, POOKUNNAM, THRISSUR-680 002.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. REKHA C.NAIR R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SASIDHARAN** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Msd. ## **Crl.MC.No. 686 of 2017** ## **-----------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :** **ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT WITH STATEMENT IN CRIME NO. 2191/2016 OF THRISSUR TOWN WEST POLICE STATION DATED 19/09/2016.** **ANNEXURE A2** **CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 2191/2016 OF THRISSUR TOWN WEST POLICE STATION DATED 7/10/2016 IN C.P.NO. 62/2016 OF JFCM-II, THRISSUR.** **ANNEXURE A3 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19/1/2017.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :** ## **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A.TO JUDGE** Msd. ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 686 of 2017 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 6[th] February, 2017 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **ORDER** - 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 a near relative of the parties, Crime No. 2191 of 2016 of the Thrissur Town West Police Station was registered and investigation was taken up for offences punishable under Sections 326 and 307 of IPC and on its completion final report has been laid before the Judicial Magistrate of 1[st] Class-II, Thrissur, where the case is presently pending as C.P.No.62 of 2016. - 3.The petitioner herein is a nonagenarian and is the husband of the 2[nd] respondent. The 2[nd] respondent, who is the wife Crl.M.C. No. 686 of 2017 2 of the petitioner, is an octogenarian. They have been residing together for the last 65 years and are the parents of 5 children. - 4.Prosecution allegation is that on 19.09.2016 at 6.30 pm, the petitioner assaulted the 2[nd] respondent when she refused to hand over the key of the almirah causing injuries. - 5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the 2[nd] respondent. - 6.The learned counsel submits that both the petitioner as well as the 2[nd] respondent are aged and are now being looked after by their children. It is submitted that the crime was registered at the instance of a near relative under a misconception of fact. Now that the disputes have been amicably settled and the parties are living in peace Crl.M.C. No. 686 of 2017 3 and harmony. It is urged 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 affidavit sworn to by the 2[nd] respondent, to buttress their submissions. - 7.The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions expresses her reservations in the matter. However it is submitted that the petitioner is not a person with criminal antecedents. - 8.I have considered the submissions. - 9.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, the High Court can take note of the Crl.M.C. No. 686 of 2017 4 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.”_ 10.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: _XXXXXXXXXXX_ _29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal_ Crl.M.C. No. 686 of 2017 5 _proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:_ _(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_ 11.The offence committed by the petitioner 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. No. 686 of 2017 6 12.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-A2 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner now pending as C.P.No. 62 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of 1[st] Class-II, Thrissur are quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE** SKS //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE