Sajeevan and Mayakumari v. State of Kerala and others

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V.
Judgment Date: 2016-12-07
Court Decision / Holding: Petition allowed; quashing of the final report and all proceedings in CC 75/2016 pending before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Mavelikara.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; quashing of proceedings and final report in CC 75/2016."

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sajeevan
Mayakumari

Respondents

State of Kerala
The Sub Inspector of Police, Chengannur Police Station
Sajikumar
Krishna Prakash
Arun Prakash
Sivadasan

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Sri. P.V. Dileep

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor Sri Amjed Ali
• Adv. Sri K.V. Anil Kumar (R3-R6)

Case Synopsis & Summary

The Kerala High Court, in a CRL.MC petition under Section 482 CrPC, examines whether to quash the criminal proceedings pending in CC 75/2016 arising from Crime No. 1037/2013 of Chengannur Police Station. The petitioners, accused 1 and 2, were charged under IPC sections 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 506(ii), 427 read with 34 for alleged acts on 14.4.2013, including wrongful restraint and assault, with a further allegation of Rs. 3,000 and a mobile phone taken. The petition contends that the parties have amicably resolved their dispute and that continuing the proceedings would be unjust and would disrupt peace. The Respondents, including the State, the Sub-Inspector of Police, and other named individuals, oppose quashing on the grounds that the court should exercise caution in invoking extraordinary powers and that a settlement cannot automatically nullify the criminal process; they note there may not be other comparable cases. The learned judge places reliance on Supreme Court precedents Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, which authorize quashing in appropriate cases where settlement serves ends of justice and avoids abuse of process. After evaluating the circumstances, the court rules that the offences are not grave, the settlement is genuine, and quashing would promote peace and conserve judicial resources. The petition is allowed and the final report and proceedings in CC 75/2016 are quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)Section 294(b) IPCSection 341 IPCSection 323 IPCSection 324 IPCSection 506(ii) IPCSection 427 read with Section 34 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ends of justice
Abuse of process of law
Settlement/compromise as basis to end criminal proceedings to secure ends of justice

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved; the act is personal in nature and does not affect public peace. Invoking the High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC is justified to quash the proceedings in view of the settlement, ends of justice, and to prevent abuse of process. They relied on Gian Singh and Narinder Singh to justify quashing in such circumstances.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents urged caution in invoking 482 CrPC in light of settlement; although amicable resolution is relevant, it cannot be the sole basis to terminate proceedings. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about quashing, noting that no other cases against petitioners exist, and argued that the court should ensure that the welfare of justice is served without undermining public interest.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 (10) SCC 303	Positive	Cited as authority that High Courts may quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases when there is an amicable settlement and to secure ends of justice, avoiding abuse of process.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	2014 (6) SCC 466	Positive	Reiterates that settlement guiding factors include ends of justice and avoiding abuse of process; supports quashing where settlement exists.

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 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938** ## **Crl.MC.No. 7965 of 2016** **---------------------------** **CC 75/2016 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - II, MAVELIKARA CRIME NO. 1037/2013 OF CHENGANNOOR POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA** **-------------** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED A1-2:** **--------------------------** ## **1. SAJEEVAN,** - **AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. KAMALASANAN, KARAZHMAYIL VEEDU, PERRISSERY MURI, CHENGANNOOR VILLAGE ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.** ## **2. MAYAKUMARI,** - **AGED 42 YEARS W/O. SAJEEVAN, KARAZHMAYIL VEEDU, PERRISSERY MURI, CHENGANNOOR VILLAGE ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.V.DILEEP** **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & COMPLAINANTS: -----------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA,** - **REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM 682 031.** **2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 689 121.** ## **3. SAJIKUMAR,** - **S/O. GOPI PILLAI ASASARIAYYATHU VEEDU KOLEDUTHUSSERY CHERI THIRUVANVANDOOR VILLAGE ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 688 001.** **4. KRISHNA PRAKASH, AGED 36 YEARS S/O. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, IRUTHEL VEEDU, KOLEDUTHUSSRY CHERI,THIRUVANVANDOOR VILLAGE ALAPUZHA DISTRICT 688 001.** **-2-** **-2CRMC NO 7965 OF 2016:** **---------------------** **5. ARUN PRAKASH, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. VASU PILLAI PRAKASH BHAVAN, KOLEDUTHUSSERY CHERI THIRUVANVANDOOR VILLAGE ALAPUZHA DISTRICT 688 001.** **6. SIVADASAN, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. GOPALACHANDRAN, KURIYIL VALYAPARAMBIL VEEDU KOLEDUTHUSSERY CHERI, THIRUVANVANDOOR VILLAGE ALAPUZHA DISTRICT 688 001.** **R1,R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI AMJED ALI R3-6 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **K.V.** ## **Crl.MC.No. 7965 of 2016 () ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES** **----------------------ANNEXURE A A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO 1037/2013 OF CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE B AFFIDAVIT OF THE RESPONDENT NO 3. ANNEXURE C AFFIDAVIT OF THE RESPONDENT NO 4. ANNEXURE D AFFIDAVIT OF THE RESPONDENT NO 5. ANNEXURE E AFFIDAVIT OF THE RESPONDENT NO 6. RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES NIL -----------------------** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **K.V.** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.7965 of 2016** **----------------------------------------Dated this the 7th day of December, 2016** ## **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.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C. No.75 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Mavelikara. In the aforesaid case, they stand indicted under sections 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 506(ii), 427 read with 34 of the IPC. - 3.The prosecution allegation is that on 14.4.2013 at 11.45 - p.m., the petitioners herein in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained respondents 3 to - 6 and assaulted them causing injuries. It is further 2 Crl.M.C.7965/2016 alleged that the petitioners also took a sum of Rs.3,000/and a mobile phone from the pocket of the 3[rd] respondent. - 4.Heard the submissions advanced. - 5.The learned counsel appearing for the party respondents submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. 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. However, it is submitted that no other cases are reported Crl.M.C.7965/2016 3 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.”_ 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: Crl.M.C.7965/2016 4 ## _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 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 Crl.M.C.7965/2016 5 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 C.C. No.75 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Mavelikara are quashed. **Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE** vps