High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-08-04Quashed

Sanal Kumar @ Unni v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No.3842 of 2016; C.C.No.1039/2016

Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date: 2016-08-04
Court Decision / Holding: Petition allowed; all further proceedings against petitioners (accused nos. 1 and 2) in C.C. No.1039/2016 are quashed under Section 482 CrPC. The case number in the order is corrected to C.C.No.1039/2016 as per the directive dated 01.09.2016.
Final Disposition: Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sanal Kumar @ Unni
Madhu

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor (R1)
Unnikrishnan (CW-1)
Natarajan (CW-2)
Shantha (CW-3)
Nisha (CW-4)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Suman Chakravarthy
• Sandeep T. George

Counsels for Respondents

• SMT. Pushpalatha M.K.
• K.B. Pradeep

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case arising out of Crime No. 275/2015 of Petta Police Station and C.C.No.1039/2016 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram. Accused 1 and 2, Sanal Kumar @ Unni and Madhu, approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash the criminal proceedings arising from offences under Sections 294(b), 447, 506(1) IPC and Sections 13 and 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958. The petition rests on the principle that the High Court may exercise inherent powers to quash in cases where a private settlement has been reached and continuing the proceedings would be futile or oppressive. The petitioner relies on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and related cases (including Narinder Singh and Yogendra Yadav) that emphasize quashing in the presence of a bona fide settlement and no public interest served by pursuit of the case. Respondents 2–5, the victims, file affidavits stating they have no objection to quashing; the State notes no other heinous cases against the petitioners. The judge observes the offence is private in nature, does not affect public peace, and that settlement would promote peace. The High Court consequently allows the petition and quashes the proceedings against accused nos. 1 and 2, correcting the case number to C.C.No.1039/2016.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 294(2) IPCSection 447 IPCSection 506(1) IPCSection 13 of Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958Section 17 of Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958Section 482 CrPCSection 320 CrPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Inherent powers of High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases (esp. where there is an out-of-court settlement)
Quashing based on private settlement when no public interest is involved as per Gian Singh and related judgments

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants submit that the offences fall within private disputes and are personal in nature; the parties have reached an out-of-court settlement; continuing prosecution serves no public interest and would occasion oppression. Relying on Gian Singh and subsequent rulings, they seek quashing under Section 482 CrPC to restore peace between the parties.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents state that affidavits from the victims indicate no objection to quashing, and point out that the offences involve private disputes. The State prosecutor notes no related heinous cases against the petitioners. The core contention is whether private settlement suffices to invoke inherent powers; the court is urged to assess whether continuation would serve any public interest.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 (4) KLT 108	Positive	Cited as the leading authority on using the high court’s inherent powers under 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings in cases involving out-of-court settlements where continuing the case would not serve public interest.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr.	2014 (6) SCC 466	Positive	Referenced as supportive authority for quashing where appropriate in the context of private settlements and absence of public interest.
Yogendra Yadav and others v State of Jharkhand	2014 (9) SCC 653	Positive	Cited as part of the series of judgments delineating circumstances under which 482 CrPC can be invoked in light of settlements.

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 @ Unni 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** **THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/13TH SRAVANA, 1938** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3842 of 2016 ()** **--------------------------C.C NO.1039/2016 OF ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. CRIME NO. 275/2015 OF PETTAH POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **......** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2:** **---------------------------------------------** **1. SANAL KUMAR @ UNNI, S/O. KUNJUKRISHNAN, AGED 46 YEARS, "JYOTHIR GAMAYA", TC 25/93(1), VADAVOOR LANE, KARIKKAKAM WARD, VENPALAVATTOM, ANAYARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **2. MADHU,** - **S/O. VASUKUTTAN NAIR, AGED 42 YEARS, PANAYIL HOUSE, TC 76/46, ANAYARA MUKHAKODE LANE, KADAKAMPALLY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **BY ADVS.SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SRI.SANDEEP T.GEORGE.** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE, DEFACTO COMPLAINANT-CWS 1 TO 4:** **--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN-682 031.** **2. UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. GOPALAN, NISHALAYAM, NEAR VENPALAVATTOM TEMPLE, KARIKKAKAM, KADAKAMPALLY, PETTAH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.(CW-1).** **3. NATARAJAN, AGED 80 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNAN, NEAR T/C NO. 79/459, VENPALAVATTOM TEMPLE, KARIKKAKAM, KADAKAMPALLY, PETTAH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.(CW-2).** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3842 of 2016** **4. SHANTHA, W/O. NADARAJAN, AGED 71 YEARS, NISHALAYAM, NEAR VENPALAVATTOM TEMPLE, KARIKKAKAM, KADAKAMPALLY, PETTAH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.(CW-3).** **5. NISHA, W/O. UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 31 YEARS, NISHALAYAM, NEAR VENPALAVATTOM TEMPLE, KARIKKAKAM, KADAKAMPALLY, PETTAH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.(CW-4).** - **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.PUSHPALATHA M.K. R2 TO R5 BY ADV. SRI.K.B.PRADEEP.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** rs. **The case number ''C.C.No.1039/2014'' occurring in the cause title of the final order dated 04/08/2016 in Crl.M.C.No.3842/2016 is corrected and substituted as ''C.C.No.1039/2016'', as per order dated 01/09/2016 in Crl.M.A.No.8993/2016 in Crl.M.C.No.3842/2016.** **SD/ASSISTANT REGISTRAR.** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3842 of 2016** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-** |**ANNEXURE-A**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE FINAL REPORT CRIME NO.275/2015 OF**| |---|---| ||**PETTAH POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.**| |**ANNEXURE-B**|**ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT**| ||**DATED 9.03.2016.**| |**ANNEXURE-C**|**ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT**| ||**DATED 18.06.2016.**| |**ANNEXURE-D**|**ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT**| ||**DATED 18.06.2016.**| |**ANNEXURE-E**|**ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT**| ||**DATED 06.05.2016.**| **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.S. TO JUDGE** rs. ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.3842 of 2016 ----------------------------------------Dated this the 4[th] day of August, 2016** ## **O R D E R** - 1.The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.1039 of 2014 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram. They were charged for having committed offence punishable under sections 294 (b), 447, 506(I) of the IPC and Ss 13 and 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958. Respondents 2 to 5 are the victims. - 2.The instant petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure banking on the ratio of the Judgment rendered by the Apex Court in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab** ( 2012 (4) KLT 108) and a series of other cases which include **Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr. (2014) 6 SCC 466)** and Crl.M.C.3842/2016 2 **Yogendra Yadav and others V State of Jharkhand** (2014 (9) SCC 653 ) with a prayer to quash the above proceeding. - 3.The sole ground is that the Apex Court in the above judgments have delineated the circumstances and the cases in which inherent powers under Section 482 can be invoked _de hors_ section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for recognizing out of court settlement for the purpose of quashing criminal proceedings. It is prayed that powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be invoked to quash the criminal proceedings. - 4.It is submitted that the parties have reached an out of court settlement and there is no acrimony between them at present. All the disputes have been amicably resolved and they desire to live in peace and harmony. The respondents 2 to 5 have filed separate affidavits wherein they assert that they have no objection in terminating the proceedings. Crl.M.C.3842/2016 3 5.The gist of the allegation is that the 2[nd] respondent herein had borrowed a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- from the 1[st] petitioner and as security for the aforesaid transaction, he had handed over cheques and other valuable sureties .On on his failure to repay the amount, the petitioners are alleged to have trespassed into the house of the 2[nd] respondent and abused and threatened respondents 2 to 5. - 6.The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that no other cases of heinous nature are reported against the petitioners. - 7.I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made across the bar and I have also gone through the materials on record. - 8.The victims have sworn to affidavits in which they assert that they have no objection in allowing the petition and in quashing the proceedings as all the disputes between the parties have been resolved and the parties are living in Crl.M.C.3842/2016 4 peace and harmony . 9. It appears to me that the offence is entirely personal in nature and do not affect public peace or tranquility. It is also felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace. In a case such as the instant one, even if the prosecution is allowed to continue, it would not serve any purpose as the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. It can only result in putting the _de facto_ complainant and the accused to unwanted oppression and prejudice. Settlement will augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony. - 10.I am of the view that this Court is well justified in quashing the impugned proceedings as the instant case falls within the matrix of guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Gian Singh ( Supra ) and the other cases referred to above. In the result, this petition is allowed. All further Crl.M.C.3842/2016 5 proceedings against the petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.1039 of 2014 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram, shall stand quashed. **Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE** vps Case number “C.C.No.1039/2014” occurring in the 1[st] and 2[nd] lines of 1[st] paragraph and in the 3[rd] line of the operative portion at page 5 of the final order dated 4.8.2016 in Crl.M.C. No.3842/2016 are corrected and substituted as “C.C.No.1039/2016”, as per order dated 01.09.2016 in Crl.M.A.No.8993/2016 in Crl.M.C.No.3842/2016.” Sd/Registrar (Judicial)