Sadasivan and others v. State of Kerala and Rahul

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date: 2017-02-20
Court Decision / Holding: THIS PETITION WILL STAND ALLOWED. Annexure-A1 FIR in Crime No.1872 of 2016 of the Sasthamcotta Police Station and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners are quashed.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; FIR and all proceedings quashed; ends of justice served through amicable settlement.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sadasivan
Radhakrishnan
Anish
Chandran
Nandu
Anandu
Chandu

Respondents

State of Kerala
Rahul

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P.B. Sahasranaman
• T.S. Harikumar

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. E.C. Bineesh

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under section 482 CrPC filed by seven petitioners challenging Crime No. 1872 of 2016 of Sasthamcotta Police Station, Kollam, registered for offences under IPC sections 323, 324, 506 and 341 read with 34. The petitioners allege that a dispute arising from an inter-family relationship culminated in a form of marriage between the de facto complainant (the 2nd respondent) and the first petitioner’s daughter, which prompted remorseful retaliation by the petitioners. The de facto complainant and the petitioners allegedly reconciled, and a settlement affidavit dated 18.01.2017, coupled with the absence of prior criminal antecedents, prompted the petitioners to seek quashing of the ongoing criminal proceedings, arguing that continuing prosecution would be futile and contrary to the ends of justice. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations but acknowledged the petitioners’ lack of prior criminal record. The High Court repeatedly cites Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab to emphasize that, in appropriate cases, a settlement between victim and wrongdoer can justify quashing to secure ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process. The Court concludes that the offence is not grave, continuing proceedings would waste time, and the prospects of conviction are bleak; accordingly, it invokes its inherent powers under Sec. 482 CrPC and quashes the FIR and all proceedings. Annexure A1 is quashed along with the proceedings.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 CrPCIPC 323IPC 324IPC 506IPC 341 read with 34

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ends of justice
Abuse of process of law
Amicable settlement / compromise between victim and wrongdoer could justify quashing

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submitted that a settlement resolving the dispute exists between the parties, the offence is not grave, and invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Sec. 482 CrPC is warranted to secure ends of justice and prevent abuse of process. Reliance was placed on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 to justify quashing in the circumstances.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations but noted that the petitioners are not persons with criminal antecedents; overall, the Respondents did not present any opposing fact strong enough to deny the court’s jurisdiction under Sec. 482, especially given the settlement and lack of serious offence.

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 proceedings in appropriate cases in light of amicable settlements between victims and wrongdoers to secure ends of justice and prevent abuse of process.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	(2014) 6 SCC 466	Positive	A reaffirmation of the principle that settlement can guide the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process when deciding to quash criminal proceedings.

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 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/1ST PHALGUNA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 1041 of 2017 () ---------------------------** ## **CRIME NO. 1872/2016 OF SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM** **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED PERSONS: ---------------------------** ## **1. SADASIVAN,** **AGED 57 YEARS,S/O.GOPALAN ACHARY,SIVAGEETHAM VEETTIL,AYANIVELIKULANGARA VILLAGE,KEASAVAPURAM MURI,KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK,S.V.MARKET.P.O, KOLLAM-690573.** **2. RADHAKRISHNAN,** - **AGED 54 YEARS,S/O NANU ACHARY,KUDANILATHU VEEDU, KOLLAKA MURIYIL,VADAKKUMTHALA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK,KOLLAKA.P.O,KOLLAM-690536.** **3. ANISH,** - **AGED 32 YEARS,S/O SANTHAN,PAYIKKUZHI MURI, OACHIRA VILLAGE,KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK,OCHIRA.P.O, KOLLAM-690526.** **4. CHANDRAN,** **AGED 49 YEARS,S/O.PARAMESWARAN ACHARY,SREESADANAM, PERUMANTHAZHA MURI,CLAPPANA VILLAGE,KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK,VARAVILA.P.O,KOLLAM-690528.** **5. NANDU,AGED 23 YEARS,** - **S/O.RADHAKRISHNAN,KUDANILATHU,KOLLAKA MURI, VADAKKUMTHALA VILALGE,KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAKA.P.O,KOLLAM-690536.** **6. ANANDU,** - **AGED 19 YEARS,S/O.RADHAKRISHNAN,KUDANILATHU, KOLLAKA MURI,VADAKKUMTHALA VILLAGE,KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK,KOLLAKA.P.O,KOLLAM-690536.** **7. CHANDU, AGED 24 YEARS,S/O.YESODHARAN,CHITRALAYAM, NAMBARUVIKALA MURI,KARUNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK,ALUMKADAVU.P.O,KOLLAM-690573.** **BY ADVS.SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN** **SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & THE COMPLAINANT:** ## **------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA,** - **REPRESNTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION,KOLLAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM-682031.** ## **2. RAHUL,** **AGED 25 YEARS,S/O.INDEEVARAKSHAN,PUTHUVEETTIL, MARUTHUEKULANGARA SOUTH MURI,KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM-690518.** ## **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.E.C.BINEESH** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.MC.No. 1041 of 2017 () ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES** **----------------------ANNEXURE A 1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.R.IN CRIME NO.1872 OF 2016 OF THE SASTHAMCOTTAH POLICE STATION** **ANNEXURE A 2 THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 18.01.2017.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES** **-----------------------** ## **NIL** **/TRUE COPY/** **VPS PS TO JUDGE** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.1041 of 2017** ## **----------------------------------------Dated this the 20[th ] day of February, 2017** ## **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.On the basis of the information furnished by the 2[nd] respondent, Crime No.1872 of 2016 of the Sasthamcotta Police Station was registered against the petitioners and investigation was taken up for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 506, 341 read with 34 of the IPC. - 3.The de facto complainant fell in love with the daughter of the 1[st] petitioner and entered into a form of marriage with her. This enraged the petitioners. According to the prosecution, on 25.9.2016 at about 11.00 p.m., the Crl.M.C.1041/2017 2 petitioners herein in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully retrained the 2[nd] respondent and thereafter assaulted him causing bodily injuries. - 4.The proceedings are sought to be quashed on the basis of - a settlement arrived at between the parties. The learned counsel appearing for the parties submits that the 1[st] petitioner is now the father-in-law of the 2[nd] respondent and the other petitioners are the close relatives of the 1[st] petitioner. In view of the resolution of the disputes, the proceedings before the criminal court is a futile exercise, is the submission. Much reliance is placed on the affidavit sworn to by the 2[nd] respondent to buttress their submissions. - 5.The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions expresses his reservations in the matter. However it is submitted that the petitioners are not persons with criminal antecedents. - 6.I have considered the submissions. Crl.M.C.1041/2017 3 7.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 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.”_ 8.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: Crl.M.C.1041/2017 4 ## _XXXXXXXXXXX_ _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:_ _(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_ 9.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. Crl.M.C.1041/2017 5 10.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-A1 FIR in Crime No.1872 of 2016 of the Sasthamcotta Police Station and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners are quashed. **Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE** vps