Satheeshkumar T.S. and Others v. State of Kerala and Sinimol

``` 2025:KER:21784 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1946 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 269 OF 2025 ``` ``` CRIME NO.582/2024 OF Pudunagaram Police Station, ``` ## **`Palakkad`** ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 5:`** - **`1 SATHEESHKUMAR T.S AGED 43 YEARS`** - **`S/O.SWAMINATHAN.T.R, SS NIVAS, THEKKUMPURAM, VEMBALLUR, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678502`** - **`2 SWAMINATHAN AGED 69 YEARS S/O.RAKKANDI, SS NIVAS, THEKKUMPURAM, VEMBALLUR, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678502`** - **`3 SAJITH KUMAR AGED 40 YEARS S/O.SWAMINATHAN.T.R, SS NIVAS, THEKKUMPURAM, VEMBALLUR, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678502`** - **`4 SANAL KUMAR AGED 38 YEARS`** - **`S/O.SWAMINATHAN.T.R, SS NIVAS, THEKKUMPURAM, VEMBALLUR, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678502`** - **`5 S.SAROJINI AGED 65 YEARS`** - **`W/O.SWAMINATHAN.T.R, SS NIVAS, THEKKUMPURAM, VEMBALLUR, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678502 BY ADV V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)`** ``` 2025:KER:21784 ``` Crl.MC.No.269 of 2025 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** :2: ## **`RESPONDENTS /STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682031`** ``` 2SINIMOL AGED 34 YEARS W/O.SATHEESH KUMAR, SS NIVAS, THEKKUMPURAM, VEMBALLUR, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678502 ``` ``` BY ADVS. V.S.SHIRAZ BAVA . V.E.ABDUL GAFOOR(K/1278/2000) A.MOHAMMED SAVAD(K/543/2005) T.R.VISHNU(K/1280/2020) LEENA JAMES(K/2144/2021) ANJANA T.S.(K/003899/2023) SRI. C.N. PRABHAKARAN (SR.PP) ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` Crl.MC.No.269 of 2025 :3: **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:21784 ``` ## **C.JAYACHANDRAN, J.** ------------------------------------ **Crl.MC.No.269 of 2025** -----------------------------------Dated this the 11[th] day of March, 2025 ## **O R D E R** ``` A five Judges Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kulwinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another[(2007) 4 CTC 769], framed broad guidelines as regards quashment of the criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code in respect of offences which are not compoundable in terms of Section 320 of the Code. One among the guidelines was that the offences against human body, other than murder and culpable homicide, may be permitted to be compounded, when the court is in a position to record a finding that the settlement between the parties is voluntary and fair. These guidelines were quoted with approval by a three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:21784 ``` Crl.MC.No.269 of 2025 **==> picture [13 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` Singh v. State of Punjab and another [(2012) 10 SCC 303]. Similarly inNarinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab [(2014) 6 SCC 466], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has gone to the extent of sanctioning invocation of the inherent power under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the F.I.R in a crime alleging offence under Section 307, which is a henious and serious offence. A practical approach is seen adopted by the Hon'ble Supreme inMadan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [(2008) 4 SCC 582] as regards quashment in respect of offences like 379, 406, 409, 418, etc., the relevant findings of which are extracted herebelow: ``` ``` “6.We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot ``` Crl.MC.No.269 of 2025 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:21784 ``` :5: ``` afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground ofrealitiesandbereftofthe technicalities of the law.” ``` ``` 2.In the facts at hand, petitioners are the accused persons in Crime No.582 of 2024 of Pudunagaram Police Station, Palakkad. The offences alleged are under Sections 341, 323, 324, 294(b) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The petitioners seek quashment of entire proceedings in the above crime, on the strength of the settlement arrived at by and between the parties. ``` ``` 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learnedcounselforthedefacto complainant/respondent no.2 and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the records. ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:21784 ``` Crl.MC.No.269 of 2025 **==> picture [13 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 5. When this Crl.M.C was moved, this Court directed to record the statement of the defacto complainant. The said direction was complied and the statement was handed over. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the issues between the petitioners and the defacto complainant are settled and that the defacto complainant is disinterested to proceed further with the prosecution case. That apart, it is noticed that, along with this Crl.M.C, an affidavit has been sworn to by the defacto complainant (2[nd]respondent herein) as Annexure-2, wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes have been amicably settled. The defacto complainant would also swear that she has no surviving grievance against the petitioners and that she has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. The affidavit is sworn to on her free will. This Court is therefore convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine and bonafide. Learned counsel for the defacto complainant would ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:21784 ``` Crl.MC.No.269 of 2025 **==> picture [13 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` also endorse that the quashment sought for can be allowed. ``` ``` 6. In the light of the above referred facts, this Court is of the opinion that the necessary parameters, as culled out in Narinder Singh (supra), Madan Mohan Abbot (supra) and Gian Singh (Supra), are fully satisfied. This court is convinced that further proceedings against the petitioners will be a futile exercise, inasmuch as the disputes have already been settled. There is little possibility of any conviction in the crime. Dehors the settlement arrived at by and between the parties, if they are compelled to face the criminal proceedings, the same, in the estimation of this Court, will amount to abuse of process of Court. The quashment sought for would secure the ends of justice. This Court also notice that offences under Sections 341 and 323 are compoundable, which is all the more a reason to accept the compromise between the parties. ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:21784 ``` Crl.MC.No.269 of 2025 **==> picture [13 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-1 FIR, and all further proceedings pursuant thereto, are hereby quashed. ``` sd/- ## **C. JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE.** Raj. ``` 2025:KER:21784 ``` Crl.MC.No.269 of 2025 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** :9: ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 269/2025`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`** ``` Annexure 1RUE COPY OF F.I.R IN CRIME NO.582/2024 OF PUDUNAGARAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DATED 14.06.2024 ``` ``` Annexure 2THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 08.01.2025 EVIDENCING THE FACTUM OF SETTLEMENT ```