High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-10-13Case disposed; petition allowed; quashing of An...

Sanal Kumar, Ratheesh, Santhosh, Rajeev v. State of Kerala and Sreejith

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C. No. 6235 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
Judgment Date: 2016-10-13
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is allowed; Annexure-B final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners in CC 515/2011 are quashed.
Final Disposition: Case disposed; petition allowed; quashing of Annexure-B final report and CC 515/2011 proceedings against accused Nos. 2 to 5.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sanal Kumar
Ratheesh
Santhosh
Rajeev

Respondents

State of Kerala, represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
Sreejith

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. G. Sudheer

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor S. Ajmad Ali
• Adv. Shajin S. Hameed

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court judgment (Single Judge) concerns a criminal miscellaneous case under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash criminal proceedings arising from CC 515/2011 (Crime No. 523/2005) before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioners, accused nos. 2 to 5, faced charges under Sections 143, 147, 148, 347, and 324 read with section 149 IPC for forming an unlawful assembly and assaulting the second respondent on 11 July 2005. The case against the 1st accused proceeded separately, culminating in a judgment dated 5 July 2011 finding him not guilty and acquitting him; the petitions against accused 2 to 5 were split and refiled as CC 515/2011. The petition submits that the disputes have been amicably settled with the second respondent, who has filed an affidavit stating he bears no subsisting grievance. The Public Prosecutor initially reserved his position, but after instructions, supported quashing in light of settled disputes. The court relies on Supreme Court authority including Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, and Rajesh Kamath J. and Others v. Mohana Kurup, to exercise its extraordinary 482 CrPC power in cases with civil flavour and private settlements. The court concludes the continuance of proceedings would be oppressive and quashes the final report and ongoing proceedings under CC 515/2011.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 CrPCIPC Section 143IPC Section 147IPC Section 148IPC Section 347IPC Section 324 read with IPC Section 149Section 320 CrPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

The High Court can exercise extraordinary powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings, including when there is a settlement between private parties.
Criminal cases with an overwhelming and predominating civil flavour may be quashed under 482 CrPC when the parties have resolved their disputes privately.
Quashing can be based on settlements between the offender and the victim, not limited to cases within Section 320 CrPC.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab provides guidelines for the exercise of 482 CrPC in such settlements.
Rajesh Kamath J. and Others v. Mohana Kurup and Others reinforces the considerations in 482 CrPC quashing in settled disputes.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that a settlement has been reached with the second respondent, a fact supported by the second respondent's affidavit stating no ongoing grievance. They contend that using the extraordinary powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash is justified in light of the settlement, the non-grave nature of the offense, and the potential for oppression if the proceedings continue. They rely on established SC precedents allowing quashing based on civil settlement and the lack of societal impact.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor initially expresses reservations about invoking 482 CrPC to quash, but with instructions acknowledges that a settlement between private parties can justify quashing in appropriate cases. The second respondent has filed an affidavit indicating no subsisting grievance. The respondents emphasize the need to balance the gravity of the offense with the settlement and the broader public interest, while noting the case does not involve a grave or serious crime.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another	2012 (10) SCC 303	Positive	Three-judge bench held that Section 482 CrPC power extends beyond cases falling within Section 320, allowing quashing based on settlements between private parties and in cases with civil flavour.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	2014 (6) SCC 466	Positive	Provided guidelines for exercise of 482 CrPC in settlement-based cases, supporting private resolution of disputes.
Rajesh Kamath J. and Others v. Mohana Kurup and Others	AIR 2016 SC 2452	Positive	Recent Supreme Court decision cited in support of quashing based on settlements and civil flavour considerations.

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 Sanal Kumar, Ratheesh, Santhosh, Rajeev v. State of Kerala and Sreejith 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** **THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/21ST ASWINA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 6235 of 2016 () ---------------------------** **CC 515/2011 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, TRIVANDRUM. CRIME NO.523/2005 OF FORT POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **.....** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 2 TO 5:** ## **----------------------------** **1. SANAL KUMAR,S/O.VIJAYAN, AGED 33 YEARS, TC 50/170, KALADI SOUTH, KALADI WARD, MANACAUD VILLAGE,** **THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **2. RATHEESH,S/O.SASI, AGED 34 YEARS, VELLARIVILA VEEDU, TC 50/231, KALADI SOUTH, KALADI WARD, MANACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **3. SANTHOSH, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 33 YEARS, PUTHENMANA VEEDU,** **TC 50/519, KALADI SOUTH, KALADI WARD, MANACAUD VILLAGE.** **4. RAJEEV, S/O. RAJENDRAN, VARAMBIL VEEDU, TC 50/530, KALADI SOUTH, KALADI WARD, MANACAUD VILLAGE.** **BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER** **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT : -------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.** **--2--** **--2--** **Crl.MC.No. 6235 of 2016 () --------------------------** **2. SREEJITH, S/O.SASIKUMAR, VARAMBUTTUVILA VEEDU, SOUTH KALADI, MANACAUD VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI R2 BY ADV.SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **mbr/** ## **Crl.MC.No. 6235 of 2016 () --------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:** |**-----------------------**| |---| |**ANNEXURE A : COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.523/2005**| |**DATED 13.7.2005 PREPARED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF**| |**POLICE, FORT POLICE STATION.**| |**ANNEXURE B : ATTESTED COPY OF THE ATTESTED OF FINAL REPORT IN**| |**CRIME NO.523/2005 PREPARED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR**| |**OF POLICE, FORT POLICE STATION BEFORE THE**| |**JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II,**| |**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.**| |**ANNEXURE C : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CC NO.512/2005 PASSED BY**| |**THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II,**| |**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.**| |**ANNEXURE D : COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE 2ND**| |**RESPONDENT DATED 17.9.2016 SIGNED BEFORE THE**| |**NOTARY PUBLIC.**| |**RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:**<br>**NIL**| |**------------------------**| |**//TRUE COPY//**| |**P.S. TO JUDGE**| ## **mbr/** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V., J.** ------------------------------------------ ## **Crl.M.C. No.6235 of 2016** -----------------------------------------Dated this the 13[th] day of October, 2016 ## **O R D E R ~~~~~~~~** - 1.This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. - 2.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 2 to 5 in C.C.No.512 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Thiruvananthapuram. They stood indicted for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 347, 324 read with Section 149 of the IPC. - 3.The prosecution allegation is that on 11.7.2005 at 7.p.m., the petitioners in furtherance of their common object formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and assaulted the 2[nd] respodent and caused injuries. 4. The petitioners did not appear before the trial court and ## **Crl.M.C. No.6235 of 2016** **-2-** face the trial. The trial was proceeded against the 1[st] accused and by Annexure-C judgment dated 5.7.2011, he was found not guilty and was acquitted of all charges. The case against the petitioners were split up and re-filed as C.C.No.515 of 2011. - 5.This petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings on the ground that the disputes have been amicably resolved between the petitioners and the 2[nd] respondent. - 6.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the 2[nd] respondent as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. - 7.The 2[nd] respondent has entered appearance through his counsel and has filed Annexure-D affidavit wherein it is asserted that the petitioners are his neighbours and that he has no subsisting grievance against them. - 8.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits ## **Crl.M.C. No.6235 of 2016** **-3-** that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, this Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings. 9.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 against the petitioners. - 10.In **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another** [2012 (10)SCC 303], the Apex Court has crystalised the position in respect of the powers vested in the High Court under S.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to quash criminal proceedings. It was held that the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, **Crl.M.C. No.6235 of 2016** **-4-** is not limited to quashing proceedings within the ambit and scope of Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The three - Judge Bench in the above case, clearly expounded, that quashing of criminal proceedings under S.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, could also be based on settlements between private parties, and could also on a compromise between the offender and the victim. Only that, the above power did not extend to crimes against the society. It is also relevant to mention, that the jurisdiction vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for quashing criminal proceedings, was held to be exercisable in criminal cases having an overwhelming and predominatingly civil flavour, particularly offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership, or such like transactions. In all such cases, the parties should have resolved their entire dispute by themselves, mutually. Further, **Crl.M.C. No.6235 of 2016 -5-** guidelines were issued by the Apex Court in **Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab** [2014 (6) SCC 466] and recently in **Rajesh Kamath J. and Others v. Mohana Kurup and Others** [AIR 2016 SC 2452]. 11.I have considered the rival submissions and I have gone through the materials on record. 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. More over, when the respondent No.2 has settled the matter, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and the continuation of the criminal case against the petitioners would be a futile exercise. It would also put the petitioners and the 2[nd] respondent to great oppression and prejudice. 12.Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of **Crl.M.C. No.6235 of 2016** **-6-** 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-B final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.C.No.515 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Thiruvananthapuram are quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE** ps/14/10/2016