High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2017-01-11Petition allowed; proceedings quashed against p...

Saileesh and Simon v. State of Kerala and Gangadhar TK & Kamalakshi

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C.No. 8892 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date: 2017-01-11
Court Decision / Holding: In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the 1st petitioner in S.C.No.534/2016 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track No.1), Manjeri are quashed, and the 2nd petitioner’s proceedings in C.P.No.53 of 2016 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manjeri are also quashed (as corrected by order dated 3.2.2017 in Crl.M.A.No.1318/2017).
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; proceedings quashed against petitioners; final report and related proceedings quashed; corrected operative portion extended to second petitioner

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Saileesh
Simon

Respondents

The State of Kerala, represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Gangadhar an TK
Kamalakshi

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Babu S. Nair

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor M.K. Puspha lata
• Adv. M. Lisha

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 CrPC before the Kerala High Court, in which petitioners Saileesh and Simon seek to quash proceedings arising from Crime No. 756/2013 at Areacode and S.C. No. 534 of 2016 pending in the Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track No.1), Manjeri. The petition alleges that the complainants, who are the petitioners’ uncle and aunt, are close relatives and the dispute is personal; the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and the continuance of criminal proceedings would not serve public peace or the ends of justice. The prosecution charges the petitioners with offences under IPC Sections 341, 323, 324, 448, 452 and 308 read with Section 34. While the Public Prosecutor expressed reservations, the court relied on Supreme Court precedents establishing that amicable settlements can justify quashing criminal proceedings in appropriate cases to prevent abuse of process and to secure ends of justice. The court observed the offences are not grave and the prospects of conviction are bleak, and thus quashing would promote peace. The order ultimately quashes the final report and all related proceedings against the petitioners, with a corrected operative portion extending to the second petitioner under C.P. No.53 of 2016.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal ProcedureSections 341, 323, 324, 448, 452, 308 read with Section 34 of the IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ends of justice
Prevention of abuse of process of law
Amicable settlement as basis to quash proceedings

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that the dispute is personal among close relatives and the parties have resolved it amicably. They contend that quashing under Section 482 CrPC is warranted because it would promote peace, prevent abuse of process and serve the ends of justice, especially since the offences are not grave and there is little likelihood of conviction given the circumstances.

Contentions of Respondents

The State, through the Public Prosecutor, and the connected respondents argue that the court should not quash proceedings, noting the seriousness of the alleged offences and the need to maintain law and order; however, they also acknowledge the possibility of settlement, but express reservations about quashing without ensuring strict scrutiny of the factual basis.

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 can quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases where there is an amicable settlement between victim and wrongdoer, to secure ends of justice and prevent abuse of process.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	[(2014) 6 SCC 466]	Positive	The Court reiterated that settlement can justify quashing if it serves ends of justice or prevents abuse of process.

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 Saileesh and Simon v. State of Kerala and Gangadhar TK & Kamalakshi 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** **WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/21ST POUSHA, 19382017** **Crl.MC.No. 8892 of 2016 ()** **--------------------------SC. NO.534/2016 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (FAST TRACK-I), MANJERI . CRIME NO. 756/2013 OF AREACODE POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **.......** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:** **--------------------------------------** **1. SAILESH, S/O. CHANDU, PEEDIKATHODIKA HOUSE, MADARUKUNDU, CHENGARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **2. SIMON,** - **S/O. CHANDU, PEEDIKATHODIKA HOUSE, MADARUKUNDU, CHENGARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR.** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE, DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & INJURED:** **--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 031, FOR THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AREACODE POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **2. GANGADHARAN T.K., S/O. UNNICHOYI, THAMARASSERY KUNNUMMAL HOUSE, MADARUKUNDU, IRUVETTY P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673 639.** **3. KAMALAKSHI, W/O. GANGADHARAN, THAMARASSERY KUNNUMMAL HOUSE, MADARUKUNDU, IRUVETTY P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 673 639.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K. PUSHPALATHA. R2 & R3 BY ADV. SMT.M.LISHA.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** - rs. ## **Crl.MC.No. 8892 of 2016** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-** **ANNEX. A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT/CHARGE IN CRIME NO. 756/13 OF THE AREACODE POLICE STATION. ANNEX. B TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 13.12.2016. ANNEX. C TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 13.12.2016.** **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:NIL.** ## **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.S. TO JUDGE** rs. ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 8892 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 11[th] day of January, 2017 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **O R D E R** ## **~~~~~~~** - 1.This petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( 'the Code” for brevity ) with a prayer to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioners. - 2.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in S.C.No.534 of 2016 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track No.1), Manjeri **.** In the aforesaid case, they face indictment under Sections 341, 323, 324, 448, 452, 308 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the respondents 2 and 3 are the uncle and aunt of the petitioners. - 3.The crux of the prosecution allegation is that on 31.7.2013 at 4.30 p.m., the petitioners herein assaulted respondents Crl.M.C. No.8892 of 2016 -2- - 2 and 3 and caused bodily injuries. - 4.Heard the submissions advanced. 5.The learned counsel appearing for the party respondents submits that the parties are near relatives and at the instance of family members, they have decided to settle the disputes mutually. Attention of this Court is invited to the affidavits filed by them to buttress his 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. Crl.M.C. No.8892 of 2016 -3- 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] 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.”_ Crl.M.C. No.8892 of 2016 -4- 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:_ _(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 Crl.M.C. No.8892 of 2016 -5- 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. In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as S.C.No.534 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track No.1), Manjeri are quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE** ps/11/1/2017 Crl.M.C. No.8892 of 2016 -6- The operative portion of the final order dated 11.1.2017 in Crl.M.C.No.8892/2016 is corrected and substituted as follows: “In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A final report and all proceeding pursuant thereto against the 1[st] petitioner now pending as S.C.No.534 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track No.1), Manjeri and that against the 2[nd] petitioner now pending as C.P.No.53 of 2016 on the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Manjeri are quashed.” (as per order dated 3.2.2017 in Crl.M.A.No.1318/2017 in Crl.M.C.No.8892/2016.) sd/- Registrar (Judicial)