High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-05-30Petition dismissed

Sabu and others v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:CRL.MC.No.3005 of 2016

Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
Judgment Date: 2016-05-30
Court Decision / Holding: Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
Final Disposition: Petition dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sabu, S/o.P.Prabhakaran
Babukuttan
Reji Bartenhill
Jolly Bartenhill
Kannappan Batenhill
Renju
Ambili
Manu
Kochucherukkan
Nishanth
Ratheesh

Respondents

State of Kerala
The Sub Inspector of Police, Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District
Jinuman S.S.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Sri.M.S.Jayakrishnan

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor Sri.Rajesh Vijayan
• Adv. SMT.K.M.Aminabeebi

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court of Kerala, in a criminal miscellaneous case under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considers a petition to quash Crime No. 978 of 2014 registered at the Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. Eleven petitioners (the accused) seek to terminate pending criminal proceedings on the ground of a settlement with the de facto complainant, evidenced by Annexure A2. The offences charged include sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 326, 308 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, and section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, and the 3rd respondent (the de facto complainant) contest the quashing, noting that the 1st petitioner is a habitual offender with prior cases under the Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Act, and stressing that several others were injured in the incident. The court recalls Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, along with Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand, to illustrate that a settlement may terminate private disputes in appropriate cases. However, it emphasizes that serious, heinous offences and crimes against society cannot be extinguished merely by private settlement. After considering the antecedents and the nature of offences, the court concludes that the settlement cannot justify quashing, and the petition is dismissed, preserving the criminal proceedings.”

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 CrPCIPC: Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 326, 308, 324, 109Arms Act 1959, Section 27Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Amicable settlement of criminal disputes between victim and wrongdoer can terminate criminal proceedings (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012 (10) SCC 303)
View reiterated in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014 (6) SCC 466) and Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another (2014 (9) SCC 653)
Offences of grave/heinous nature (murder, rape, dacoity, etc.) are not private disputes and cannot be quashed on settlement
State of M.P. v. Manish and Others (2015 (8) SCC 307) and State of M.P. v. Deepak and Others (2014 (10) SCC 285) establish that crimes against society cannot be treated as private disputes

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement, with Annexure A2 (affidavit) confirming de facto consent to quash the proceedings. They contend the offence is not of a purely private nature and the dispute should end in the interest of peace, especially as the injuries were the result of a single incident. They rely on the principle that amicable settlements may terminate criminal proceedings in appropriate cases, as recognised in Gian Singh and reiterated in subsequent judgments.

Contentions of Respondents

The State and the complainant oppose quashing, emphasising that the accused include a habitual offender and that the offences involve weapons and serious injuries (sections 326, 308 IPC and Arms Act). The offences are not private in nature and have societal impact. The Public Prosecutor seeks verification of genuineness of the settlement and maintains that certain grave offences cannot be treated as private disputes, citing decisions that favour maintaining public peace and the integrity of law.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 (10) SCC 303	Distinguished	The court cites Gian Singh to acknowledge the principle that amicable settlements can terminate criminal proceedings, but distinguishes it due to the heinous/serious nature of the offences in this case.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	2014 (6) SCC 466	Positive	Cited as supportive of the settlement principle but within its limits; the judgment notes the view was reiterated in Narinder Singh.
Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another	2014 (9) SCC 653	Positive	Cited as supportive of the settlement principle; reiterated along with Gian Singh.
State of M.P. v. Manish and Others	2015 (8) SCC 307	Positive	Affirms that grave offences cannot be treated as private disputes and may not be quashed on settlement.
State of M.P. v. Deepak and Others	2014 (10) SCC 285	Positive	Supports the view that serious offences are not private matters and cannot be quashed solely by settlement.

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 Sabu 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** **MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2016/9TH JYAISHTA, 1938** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3005 of 2016 ()** ## **--------------------------CRIME NO. 978/2014 OF MUSEUM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT** **--------------** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:** **---------------------------------------** **1. SABU, S/O.P.PRABHAKARAN, AGED 45 YEARS, T.C.12/613, KUNNUKUZHY, VANCHIYOOR P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695 304.** **2. BABUKUTTAN,** - **S/O RAVI, AGED 30 YEARS, T.C.12/982, KUNNUKUZHY, VANCHIYOOR P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695 304.** **3. REJI BARTENHILL,** - **AGED 33 YEARS, S/O REGHU, T.C.2/2246, ADARSH NAGAR, PLAMMOODU, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 004.** **4. JOLLY BARTENHILL,** - **S/O ANTONY ABREW, AGED 38 YEARS, T.C.12/902, KUNNUKUZHY, VANCHIYOOR P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695 304.** **5. KANNAPPAN BATENHILL, S/O RAVI, AGED 31 YEARS, T.C.12/982, KUNNUKUZHY,** **VANCHIYOOR P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695 304.** **6. RENJU, S/O VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED 36 YEARS, T.C.12/795, KUNNUKUZHY, VANCHIYOOR P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695 304.** **7. AMBILI, S/O THULASI, AGED 29 YEARS, T.C.12/963, KUNNUKUZHY, VANCHIYOOR P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695 304.** **8. MANU, S/O MANIYAN, AGED 29 YEARS, T.C.12/944, KUNNUKUZHY, VANCHIYOOR P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695 304.** **9. KOCHUCHERUKKAN,** - **S/O VASANTHI, AGED 40 YEARS, T.C.12/864, KUNNUKUZHY, VANCHIYOOR P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695 304.** **2/-** **-2-** **CRL.MC.NO.3005/2016** ## **10. NISHANTH, S/O THANKKAPPAN, AGED 25 YEARS, T.C.12/825, KUNNUKUZHY, VANCHIYOOR P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695 304.** ## **11. RATHEESH,** **AGED 35 YEARS, S/O REGHU, T.C.2/2246, ADARSH NAGAR, PLAMMOODU, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 004.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.M.S.JAYAKRISHNAN** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:** **---------------------------------------------------** ## **1. THE STATE OF KERALA,** **REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031** ## **2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,** **MUSEUM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 004.** ## **3. JINUMON S.S.,** **AGED 28, S/O Y.SAMUEL, BHRA-259, T.C.12/870, BARTON HILL WEST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 004.** **R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN R3 BY ADV. SMT.K.M.AMINABEEVI** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** **Crl.MC.No. 3005 of 2016 () --------------------------------------APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES: ---------------------------------------------ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R DATED 14.7.2014. ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFDIAVIT EXECUTED ON 29.2.2016. RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL ----------------------------------------------/TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE** **==> picture [15 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----**<br> sts<br>**----- End of picture text -----**<br> ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J. --------------------Crl.M.C. No.3005 of 2016** ## **-------------------------Dated this the 30[th] day of May, 2016** ## **O R D E R** This petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) seeking invocation of powers of this Court to quash pending Criminal Proceedings on the ground of settlement. 2. Crime No.978 of 2014 of the Museum Police Station was registered against the petitioners herein at the instance of the 3[rd] respondent for offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 326 308, 324 and 109 of the IPC and under section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. 3. The prosecution allegation is that the petitioners had inflicted serious injuries on the 2[nd] respondent and four of his friends on 13.07.2014 using deadly weapons. It is submitted that during the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have sorted out the matter between themselves and Crl.M.C. No.3005/2016 2 on that ground the proceedings are sought to be quashed. 4. The 3[rd] respondent has entered appearance through counsel and had submitted that the disputes have been amicably resolved. Referring to Annexure-A2 affidavit, it is submitted by the learned counsel that he has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor was directed to obtain instructions to ascertain the genuineness of the settlement arrived at and also as to whether the State has any objection in acting upon the affidavit filed by the _de facto_ complainant. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the 1[st] petitioner is a habitual offender against whom proceedings have been initiated under the Antisocial Activities ( Prevention ) Act , 2007. It is also submitted that he is the accused in Crime No. 686 of 2013 and Crime No.1098 of 2013 of the Museum Police Station. The former crime has been registered _inter alia_ under section 384 of the IPC and the latter crime has been 3 Crl.M.C. No.3005/2016 registered for offences punishable under sections 302 and 308 of the IPC. It is also pointed out that in the instant case, several others have sustained injuries and without a complete settlement of the dispute the matter case cannot be terminated prematurely. It is finally submitted that the offence charged is under section 326 and 308 of the IPC and also under section 27 of the Arms Act and the offence cannot be said to be entirely personal. 6. The law with regard to the settlement of criminal disputes on the strength of an amicable resolution of the disputes between the parties is no more _res integra_ . 7. **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 amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. This view was reiterated in **Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014 (6) SCC 466) and Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State** Crl.M.C. No.3005/2016 4 ## **of Jharkhand and Another (2014 (9) SCC 653).** 8. However, it was held that such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Offences under Section 307 IPC was also held to fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone unless special circumstances come to the notice of the Court to take a different view _._ 9. The Apex Court in **State of M.P. v. Manish and Others (2015 (8) SCC 307)** and also in **State of M.P. v. Deepak and Others (2014 (10) SCC 285** ) has held that certain grave offences cannot be treated as a private dispute between the parties _inter se_ but is to be held to be a crime against the society . 10. After hearing the rival submissions and taking note Crl.M.C. No.3005/2016 5 of the antecedents of the 1[st] petitioner and the 3[rd] petitioner, this Court is of the view that based on a reported settlement with the defacto complainant the proceedings against the petitioners herein cannot be quashed. The offences cannot be said to be strictly private or personal in nature and it has got the tendency of to effect the maintenance of peace and tranquility of the society as well. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., (JUDGE)** vps