Riswan O. and others v. State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Alexander Thomas
Judgment Date: 2019-11-01
Court Decision / Holding: The impugned FIR in Crime No.1282/2016 and all further proceedings against all accused are quashed; the Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of in the interests of justice; copies of the order to be provided to the Investigating Officer and the competent court.
Final Disposition: Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Riswan O.
Rippas
Sanal Kumar V
Maneesh B
Shijith C
Vipin O
Ashwin Ashok @ AChu
Sukesh P
Pramod O
Chandran C
Akhil V

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Sunil Kumar
Sasidharan C.V.
T.V. Ashokan
Pradeep.M
Vipin Babu.P
Manosh.K
Sreemathi.C.K.
Sudha.M
Narayani.K

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. A. Arun Kumar

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Santosh Peter, Public Prosecutor
• Adv. Vipin T Jose

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.MC No.7408 of 2019) filed in the Kerala High Court by 11 petitioners seeking to quash an FIR (Crime No.1282/2016) and proceedings arising from an incident on 23 December 2016 at Ravaneeshwaram Kalarikkal, Chithari village, during a temple festival. The petitioners, arraigned as accused Nos. 1 to 11, contend their innocence and rely on a mediated settlement with the respondents (injured parties). Affidavits from respondents 2–10 ( Annexures A3–A10 ) indicate disputes were resolved; one injured party (R6) is represented through his mother (Annexure A11). The court recalls that under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court may quash if the parties have settled the dispute and continued prosecution would serve no useful purpose. Citing the apex court’s precedents Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, the court notes that the circumstances here justify exercise of quashing power. After examining the final report and the settlement affidavits, the court holds that continuing prosecution would only waste judicial time. Consequently, the impugned FIR (Anx. I) and all further proceedings against all accused are quashed. The order directs copies to be sent to the IO and relevant courts, and the petition is disposed of in the interest of justice.

Provisions of Law Cited

Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Settlement between the parties can justify quashing under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C.; continued prosecution would not serve the ends of justice.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; 2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 160
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr (2014) 6 SCC 466

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners deny involvement in the alleged offence and rely on a mediated settlement with the injured respondents. They urge quashing under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. to conserve judicial time and due process, highlighting that the dispute has been resolved and continued proceedings would serve no purpose; they rely on established precedents (Gian Singh; Narinder Singh) to justify quashing in the interest of justice.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents (injured parties) have filed affidavits indicating settlements with the petitioners and have no objection to quashing the proceedings, except for the factual injury originally sustained. They support quashing given the settlements and the time-wasting nature of continuing prosecution, in line with established Supreme Court principles.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	(2012) 10 SCC 303 / 2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 160	Positive	Cited as a guiding precedent supporting quashing under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. where disputes are settled and prosecution would not serve justice.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr	(2014) 6 SCC 466	Positive	Cited for principle that settlement between parties may justify quashing in the interest of justice.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** ## **FRIDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 10TH KARTHIKA, 1941** ## **Crl.MC.No.7408 OF 2019(E)** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 520/2018 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - III, KASARAGOD AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN LPC 103/2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,HOSDRUG CRIME NO.1282/2016 OF Hosdurg Police Station , Kasargod** ## **PETITIONERS:** |**1**|**RISWAN O.**| |---|---| ||**AGED 19 YEARS**| ||**S/O. RAFEEQ, ORAVANGARA HOUSE, MUKKOODU, CHITHARI**| ||**VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT**| |**2**|**RIPPAS,**| ||**AGED 24 YEARS**| ||**S/O. RAFEEQ, OLAVANGARA HOUSE, MUKKOOD, CHITHARI**| ||**VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK**| |**3**|**SANAL KUMAR V,**| ||**AGED 24 YEARS**| ||**S/O. SATHEESHKUMAR V, MUKKOODU, CHITHARI VILLAGE,**| ||**KASARAGOD DISTRICT**| |**4**|**MANEESH B,**| ||**AGED 26 YEARS**| ||**S/O. KUMARAN B, CHEMMANAKKODAN HOUSE, KOTTILANGAD,**| ||**RAVANEESHWARAM, CHITHARI VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT**| |**5**|**SHIJITH C,**| ||**AGED 29 YEARS**| ||**S/O. JAYAN C, CHIRAKKAL HOUSE, MUKKOODU, CHITHARI**| ||**VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT**| |**6**|**VIPIN O,**| ||**AGED 24 YEARS**| ||**S/O. BALACHANDRAN, ORAVANGARA HOUSE, MUKKOODU,**| ||**CHITHARI VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT**| |**7**|**ASHWIN ASHOK @ ACHU,**| ||**AGED 24 YEARS**| ||**S/O. SULOCHANA, VALAPPIL HOUSE, MUKKOODU, CHITHARI**| **Crl.MC.No.7408 OF 2019(E)** **2** ## **VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT** - **8 SUKESH P, AGED 26 YEARS S/O. SURESHAN, PULIYAKKATTU, MUKKOODU, CHITHARI VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT** - **9 PRAMOD O, AGED 25 YEARS S/O. SHIVASHANGARAN, ORAVANGARA VALIYAVEEDU, RAVEENSHWARAM, CHITHARI VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT** - **10 CHANDRAN C, AGED 32 YEARS** - **S/O. APPAKUNHI, CHIRAKKAL HOUSE, MUKKOODU, CHITHARI VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT** - **11 AKHIL V, AGED 23 YEARS** - **S/O. NARAYANAN, VARIKKADU, CHAMUNDIKUNNU, CHITHARI VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031** - **2 SUNILKUMAR AGED 45 YEARS S/O. RAGHAVAN, VADAKKU VALAPPIL HOUSE, KALARIKKAL, RAVANEESHWARAM, CHITHARI VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT** - **3 SASIDHARAN C.V. AGED 55 YEARS** - **S/O. KUNHIRAMAN, KANIYAMVALAPPIL HOUSE, RAVANEESHWARAM, CHITHARI VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT** - **4 T.V.ASHOKAN AGED 52 YEARS** - **S/O. KUMARAN, KULIYANMARAM HOUSE, RAVANEESHWARAM, CHITHARI VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** - **5 PRADEEP.M AGED 37 YEARS** **Crl.MC.No.7408 OF 2019(E)** **3** **S/O. APPAKUNHI, MOOLAYIL VEEDU, PODIPPALLAM, RAVANEESHWARAM, CHITHARI VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **6 VIPIN BABU.P AGED 26 YEARS** **S/O. SREEMATHI C.K, PUTHIYAPURAYIL, KALARIKKAL, RAVANEESHWARAM, CHITHARI VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **7 MANOSH.K AGED 30 YEARS** **S/O. BALAN, CHETTIVALAPPU HOUSE, KALARIKKAL, RAVANEESHWARAM, CHITHARI VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **8 SREEMATHI.C.K. AGED 45 YEARS W/O. BABU (LATE) PUTHIYAPURAYIL, KALARIKKAL, RAVANEESHWARAM, CHITHARI VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **9 SUDHA.M AGED 39 YEARS** **W/O. ASHOKAN, MOOLAYIL VEEDU, PODIPPALAM, RAVANEESHWARAM, CHITHARI VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **10 NARAYANI.K AGED 56 YEARS D/O. KORAGAN, MOOLAVIL VEEDU, PODIPPALLAM, RAVANEESHWARAM, CHITHARI VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **R2-5, R7-10 BY ADV. VIPIN T JOSE** ## **SRI.SANTHOSH PETER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.MC.No.7408 OF 2019(E)** **4** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J ============================ Crl.MC. No. 7408/2019** ## **============================================== Dated this the 1[st] day of November 2019** ## **O R D E R** The petitioners herein have been arrayed as accused Nos. 1 to 11 in the instant crime No. 1282/2016 of Hosdurg Police Station. Altogether there are 11 accused in the accused array in the FIR and the Police after investigation had filed Final Report and the case, as against the 2[nd] petitioner (A2) was split up and is now pending as LPC No. 103/2018 on the File of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Hosdurg. The case as against all the other 10 accused persons (the petitioners other than the 2[nd] petitioner) was duly committed to the Session's Court, wherein it has been numbered Sessions Case SC No. 520/2018 on the file of the Court of the Additional District Judge-III, Kasargod. 2. The prosecution allegation is that on 23/12/2016 at 16.30 hours at Ravaneeshwaram Kalarikkal in Chithari Village during the festival, in Mulavannur Baghavathi Temple, the accused persons armed with bamboo stick, iron stick, gathered at the temple premises and abused the defacto complainant and other temple festival committee office bearers and attacked them and the defacto complainant sustained fracture on his little finger and thereby committed the offence as alleged by the prosecution. **Crl.MC.No.7408 OF 2019(E)** **5** 3. The case against petitioners 1, 3 to 11 are pending as S.C. No. 520 of 2018 on the files of Additional District Judge-III, Kasargod and case against the 2[nd] petitioner is pending as L.P.C. No. 103/2018 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Hosdurg. 4. It is submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the allegations leveled against them and they have not committed any offence as alleged. 5. The entire dispute between the petitioners and the respondents 2 to 10 are settled out of Court due to the intervention of mediators. 6. Petitioners 1, 3 to 11 had earlier filed Crl.M.C. NO. 7235 of 2019 and the same was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh Crl.M.C. arraying all accused in Annexure A2 final report as parties and thus the present Crl.M.C is filed. 7. Respondents 2 to 10 are the injured persons in this case. All the injured persons among respondents 2 to 10 other than R6 have filed affidavits as per Annexures A3 to A10 stating that their entire disputes with the petitioners have been resolved and that they have no objection in quashing the impugned criminal proceedings. Further it is stated that R6 is now abroad and that he has authorised his mother (R8) to swear to an affidavit on his behalf regarding the factum of settlement and such an affidavit on behalf of R6 has been sworn to by R8 (his mother) as per **Crl.MC.No.7408 OF 2019(E)** **6** Annexure A11 affidavit. The main injury said to have suffered in this case is by R2, who has sustained a fracture on his little finger. 8. In a catena of decisions, the Apex Court has held that, in appropriate cases involving even non-compoundable offences, the High Court can quash prosecution by exercise of the powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C., if the parties have really settled the whole dispute or if the continuance of the prosecution will not serve any purpose. Here, this Court finds a real case of settlement between the parties and it is also found that continuance of the prosecution in such a situation will not serve any purpose other than wasting the precious time of the court, when the case ultimately comes before the court. On a perusal of the petition and on a close scrutiny of the investigation materials on record and the affidavit of settlement and taking into account the attendant facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the legal principles laid down by the Apex Court in the cases as in _**Gian Singh** v._ _**State of Punjab**_ reported in 2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 160 = (2012) 10 SCC 303 and _**Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr**_ . reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, more particularly paragraph 29 thereof, could be applied in this case to consider the prayer for quashment. 9. Accordingly, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the impugned Anx.I FIR in Crime No.1282/2016 of Hosdurg Police Station, **Crl.MC.No.7408 OF 2019(E)** **7** Kasargod and all further proceedings arising therefrom pending against all the accused will stand quashed. 10. The petitioners will produce certified copies of this order to the Investigating Officer concerned and the competent court below concerned. Office of Advocate General will forward copy of this order to the Investigating Officer concerned, for necessary information. With these observations and directions, the above Criminal Miscellaneous Case stands finally disposed of. **Sd/-** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS** Nsd //true copy// PA to Judge **JUDGE** **Crl.MC.No.7408 OF 2019(E)** **8** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A1** **A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 1282 OF 2016 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION** **ANNEXURE AII A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 1282 OF 2016 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION** **ANNEXURE AIII A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT** **ANNEXURE AIV A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT** **ANNEXURE AIX A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 9TH RESPONDENT** **ANNEXURE AV A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT ANNEXURE AVI A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT ANNEXURE AVII A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT** **ANNEXURE AVIII A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT** **ANNEXURE AX A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 10TH RESPONDENT** **ANNEXURE AXI A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY 8TH RESPONDENT ON BEHALF OF 6TH RESPONDENT ANNEXURE AXII A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/10/2019 IN CRL.M.C NO. 7235 OF 2019**