High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-04-30Petition allowed; quashing of criminal proceedi...

SARATRAJ @ SARAT; ANANDU @ UNNIKUTTAN; SYAMKUMAR @ MANIKUTTAN; AKHILRAJ @ ACHU; MAHESH @ UNNI v. STATE OF KERALA

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No.2229 of 2021 (G)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2021-04-30
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is allowed. Annexure A2 final report in Crime No.999/2019 (Sakthikulangara) and all further proceedings in CP 33/2020 (J.F.C.M. Kollam-II) against the petitioners are quashed.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; quashing of criminal proceedings and final report

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Saratraj @ Sarat
Anandu @ Unnikuttan
Syamkumar @ Manikutttan
Akhilraj @ Achu
Mahesh @ Unni

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
The Station House Officer Sakthikulangara Police Station, Kollam District
Suresh Kumar
Subhash

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• C. R. Jayakumar
• Nobel Raju

Counsels for Respondents

• S.K. Pradeep (advocate for respondents 3 and 4)
• Sri. Santosh Peter, Senior Public Prosecutor (for the State)

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petition is under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash Crime No.999/2019 of Sakthikulangara Police Station and CP 33/2020 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kollam. Petitioners, five accused (SaratrRaj, AnandU, Syamkumar, Akhilraj, Mahesh), are charged under multiple IPC sections including 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 341, 323, 324 and 308 read with 149, and the police report also invoked section 308. The prosecution alleges that on 24.12.2019 the petitioners formed an unlawful assembly, with the first petitioner allegedly assaulting the second respondent with an iron rod and petitioners 3 to 5 assaulting respondents 3 and 4 out of prior animosity. The petitioners’ counsel contends that a settlement through well-wishers has been reached; the respondents 3 and 4 have filed affidavits (A3 and A4) stating no grievance and desire to quash theFinal Report (A2). The State reports no serious objection and the IO confirms genuineness of the settlement. The High Court cites Gian Singh and Parbatbhai Aahir to emphasize that, where an amicable settlement exists and the offence is not grave, quashing may be justified. It concludes that no public interest is involved, fines less severe injuries exist, and continuation would waste judicial time. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and all further proceedings are quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal ProcedureSection 308 of the Indian Penal CodeSection 320 of the Code of Criminal ProcedureSection 149 of the Indian Penal CodeSections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ends of justice (doctrine)
Inherent power of High Court under Section 482 CrPC
Amicable settlement as basis to quash criminal proceedings
Quashing based on not-serious nature of offences and absence of public interest
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 (cited)
Prabatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur v. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641 (cited)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The counsel for petitioners submits that the parties settled the dispute amicably with the help of well-wishers, and there is no material showing serious injuries; the alleged offence under Sec. 308 IPC is not made out; all other offences are compoundable under Sec. 320 CrPC; respondents 3 and 4 have expressed no grievance in affidavits A3 and A4 and desire to quash the final report (A2). It is argued that there is no public interest involved, the chance of conviction is remote, and continuing proceedings would waste judicial time; therefore, inherent power under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised to quash CP 33/2020 and Annexure A2.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents 3 and 4 and the State argue that affidavits A3 and A4 reflect genuine settlement; the police report indicates no further grievance; State has no serious objection; the Court should consider ends of justice but must ensure the settlement is genuine and not contrary to public policy. The Public Prosecutor supports quashing if settlement is genuine and no public interest involved.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 (10) SCC 303	Positive	Cited to support the principle that an amicable settlement and non-serious offences may justify quashing to secure ends of justice.
Prabatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur v. State of Gujarat	(2017) 9 SCC 641	Positive	Cited to reinforce the scope of quashing criminal proceedings in light of settlement and lack of grave crime, aligning with ends of justice.

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 SARATRAJ @ SARAT; ANANDU @ UNNIKUTTAN; SYAMKUMAR @ MANIKUTTAN; AKHILRAJ @ ACHU; MAHESH @ 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.

1 **Crl.MC.No.2229 OF 2021** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 10TH VAISAKHA, 1943** ## **Crl.MC.No.2229 OF 2021(G)** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CP 33/2020 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, KOLLAM** **CRIME NO.999/2019 OF Sakthikulangara Police Station , Kollam** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **1 SARATRAJ @ SARAT AGED 22 YEARS S/O.SOMARAJAN, KUMARI-PICHAZHIKATHU VEEDU, KANNIMEL CHERI, SAKTHIKULAGNARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 003.** - **2 ANANDU @ UNNIKUTTAN, AGED 23 YEARS S/O.ASOKAN, ANANDU BHAVAN, DESASEVINI NAGAR-113, KANNIMEL CHERI, SAKTHIKULAGNARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 003.** - **3 SYAMKUMAR @ MANIKUTTAN, AGED 21 YEARS** **S/O.SASIKUAMR, THOPPIL PURAYIDOM VEEDU, KANNIMEL CHERI, SAKTHIKULAGNARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 003.** - **4 AKHILRAJ @ ACHU, AGED 21 YEARS** **S/O.BABURAJ, ULAPPOOR VADAKKATHIL VEEDU, KANNIMEL CHERI, SAKTHIKULAGNARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 003.** - **5 MAHESH @ UNNI, AGED 20 YEARS S/O.MANOJ, PUTHANZHIKATH VADAKKATHIL VEEDU, KANNIMEL CHERI, SAKTHIKULAGNARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 003.** **BY ADVS. SRI.C.R.JAYAKUMAR SRI.NOBEL RAJU** 2 **Crl.MC.No.2229 OF 2021** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.** - **2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER SAKTHIKULANGARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 003.** - **3 SURESHKUMAR** **AGED 41 YEARS** **S/O.SUDHAKARAN, ULAPPOOR THARAYIL VEEDU, KANNIMEL CHERI, SAKTHIKULAGNARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 003.** - **4 SUBHASH** **AGED 34 YEARS** **S/O.KUTTAPPAN, SUMALAYAM VEEDU, KANNIMEL CHERI, SAKTHIKULAGNARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 003.** ## **R3-4 BY ADV. S.K.PRADEEP** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SRI. SANTHOSH PETER, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** 3 **Crl.MC.No.2229 OF 2021** ## **C.S.DIAS, J. ====================== Crl MC No.2229 of 2021 ====================== Dated this the 30[th] day of April, 2021.** ## **ORDER** The petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The petitioners are the accused 1 to 5 in Crime No.999/2019 of the Sakthikulangara Police Station, Kollam District registered against them for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147,148, 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 308 read with Sec.149 of the Indian Penal Code. Annexure A1 is the FIR and Annexure A2 is the final report filed by the Police before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kollam and numbered as CP 33/2020. 3. The prosecution allegation is that on 24.12.2019 the petitioners formed an unlawful assembly and the first petitioner hit the second respondent with 4 **Crl.MC.No.2229 OF 2021** an iron rod and the petitioners 3 to 5 punched the respondents 3 and 4 out of their previous animosity. Hence they have committed the above offences. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 4. Perused the records. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that with the intervention of well-wishers, the subject matter in dispute between the petitioners and the respondents 3 and 4 has been settled out of Court. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 4 submitted that the respondents 3 and 4 have filed Annexures-A3 and A4 affidavits, inter alia, stating that they have no subsisting grievance against the petitioners and are no longer desirous of pursuing the matter any further as against the petitioners. The learned counsel vouched for the 5 **Crl.MC.No.2229 OF 2021** signature of the respondents 3 and 4 in Annexures-A3 and A4 affidavits. 7. The Police after investigation have incorporated Sec.308 of the Indian Penal Code as against the petitioners. On bestowing my anxious consideration to the final report and the other materials on record, it is found that no serious injuries have been caused to the respondents 3 and 4 in the alleged incident on 24.12.2019. The injuries that have been mentioned are only simple in nature, which does not attract the offence punishable under Sec.308 of the Indian Penal Code. All the other offences are compoundable falling within the fold of Sec.320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Moreover, the respondents 3 and 4 have empathetically stated in Annexures A3 and A4 affidavits that they have no grievance against the petitioners and have no objection in Annexure A2 final report being quashed. There is no public interest involved in the above case. 8. The learned Public Prosecutor reported that 6 **Crl.MC.No.2229 OF 2021** the Investigating Officer has ascertained the genuineness of the settlement and that the respondents 3 and 4 have admitted the execution of Annexures-A3 and A4 affidavits. The State has no serious objection in the petition being allowed. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab** [2012 (10) SCC 303] and **Prabatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another** [(2017) 9 SCC 641] has held that in facts and circumstances of a case and to secure the ends of justice, where the High Court is satisfied that an amicable settlement has been arrived between the parties and the offence is not serious in nature involving mental depravity, criminal proceedings may be quashed. 10. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on being convinced that ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power of this Court, particularly since the alleged offences are not serious in nature, no public interest is involved, the 7 ## **Crl.MC.No.2229 OF 2021** chances of conviction is remote, the continuation of the proceeding would only be wastage of judicial time and the settlement would augur harmony, I am satisfied that the petition is to be allowed. In the result, the Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure-A2 final report in Crime No.999/2019 of the Sakthikulangara Police Station, Kollam District and all further proceedings in CP No.33/2020 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kollam as against the petitioners are quashed. ## **Sd/-** **C.S.DIAS** SKS/30.4.2021 **JUDGE** 8 **Crl.MC.No.2229 OF 2021** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.999/2019 OF SAKTHIKULANGARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. ANNEXURE A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.999/2019 OF SAKTHIKULAGNARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. ANNEXURE A3 AFFIDAVIT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 10.04.2021. ANNEXURE A4 AFFIDAVIT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 10.04.2021.**