Savin and others v. State of Kerala (Crl.MC.3114/2020(H) & Crl.MC.3116/2020(H))

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Justice V.G. Arun
Judgment Date: 2020-08-12
Court Decision / Holding: The High Court allowed the Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions and quashed the proceedings: CC No. 2076/2018 of the JFCM-II, Thrissur and the FIR/Case No. 509/2018 of Nedupuzha Police Station.
Final Disposition: Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Savin
Geetha
Sudhakaran
Levin

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
The Sub Inspector of Police, Nedupuzha Police Station, Thrissur
Greeshma (3rd respondent), aged 31 years D/o Gangadhar, Koorkkancherry Village desom, Thrissur taluk

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Dr. K.P. Satheesan (Sr.)
• Sri P. Mohandas (Ernakulam)
• Sri S. Vibheeshanan
• Sri K. Sudhinkumar
• Sri S.K. Adhithyan
• Sri Sabu Pullan
• Sri Gokul D. Sudhakaran

Counsels for Respondents

• K.K. Rajeev
• Public Prosecutor Sreeja V.

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous petition challenging orders in two cases registered at Nedupuzha Police Station and pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Thrissur. The petitioners, Savin, Geetha, Sudhakaran and Levin, faced offences under IPC sections 498A, 406 and 323 in Crime No. 506/2018 (C.C. No. 2076/2018) and under IPC sections 406, 420, 465 and 468 in Crime No. 509/2018. The de facto complainant, Greeshma (3rd respondent), wife of the 1st petitioner, has filed affidavits asserting that the complaint was lodged on a misunderstanding and that the disputes have since been amicably resolved, with no subsisting grievance. The State, through the Public Prosecutor, indicates the petitioners have no criminal antecedents. The High Court, upon considering the affidavits, the gravity of the offences, and the absence of public interest in continuing proceedings, found that continuation would amount to abuse of process. Relying on Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008) 4 SCC 582 and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, the court held that no impediment exists to grant the relief sought and quashed the proceedings and related FIRs/CRs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Indian Penal Code, Sections 498A, 406, 323IPC 498AIPC 406IPC 323

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Abuse of process of court

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants submit that the two crimes, though serious on the face of the charges, involve disputes resolved amicably with the de facto complainant. They contend a legitimate settlement exists with no ongoing grievance, and continued prosecution would constitute abuse of process and would serve no public interest. Citing the principles in Madan Mohan Abbot and Gian Singh, they urge quashing of CC 2076/2018 and Crime No. 509/2018.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents acknowledge the settlement evidenced by affidavits filed by the 3rd respondent, and the absence of ongoing grievance. The State’s position is that, given the settlement and lack of public interest in continued prosecution, quashing proceedings would be appropriate, provided the Supreme Court precedents are respected and the gravitas of the offences is weighed.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab	(2008) 4 SCC 582	Positive	Cited to justify quashing where there is a settlement and no public interest in continuing proceedings; supports abuse of process principle.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another	(2012) 10 SCC 303	Positive	Cited to endorse quashing in light of settlements between parties, subject to not compromising serious offences or public interest.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

**Crl.MC.3114/2020, Crl.MC.3116/2020** **1** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 21ST SRAVANA, 1942** ## **Crl.MC.No.3114 OF 2020(H)** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 2076/2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,THRISSUR CRIME NO.506/2018 OF Nedupuzha Police Station , Thrissur** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 TO 4:** |**1**|**SAVIN,**| |---|---| ||**AGED 34 YEARS**| ||**S/O.SUDHAKARAN, PANATTUVEETTIL HOUSE, ALATHUR**| ||**VILLAGE, MALA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.**| |**2**|**GEETHA,**| ||**AGED 58 YEARS**| ||**W/O.SUDHAKARAN, PANATTUVEETTIL HOUSE, ALATHUR**| ||**VILLAGE, MALA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.**| |**3**|**SUDHAKARAN,**| ||**AGED 64 YEARS**| ||**S/O.KRISHNAN, PANATTUVEETTIL HOUSE, ALATHUR**| ||**VILLAGE, MALA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.**| |**4**|**LEVIN,**| ||**AGED 31 YEARS**| ||**S/O.SUDHAKARAN, PANATTUVEETTIL HOUSE, ALATHUR**| ||**VILLAGE, MALA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.**| ||**BY ADVS.**| ||**DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.)**| ||**SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM)**| ||**SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN**| ||**SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR**| ||**SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN**| **Crl.MC.3114/2020, Crl.MC.3116/2020** **2** ## **SRI.SABU PULLAN SRI.GOKUL D. SUDHAKARAN** ## **RESPONDENT/STATE, COMPLAINANT AND DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031.** - **2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEDUPUZHA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR-680007.** - **3 GREESHMA, AGED 31 YEARS D/O.GANGADHARAN, CHETTIKKATTIL HOUSE, KOORKKANCHERRY VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK, PIN680007.** **R3 BY ADV. K.K.RAJEEV** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.08.2020, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.3116/2020(H), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 21ST SRAVANA, 1942** **Crl.MC.No.3116 OF 2020(H)** **CRIME NO.509/2018 OF Nedupuzha Police Station , Thrissur** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **SAVIN AGED 34 YEARS S/O. SUDHAKARAN, PANATTUVEETTIL HOUSE, ALATHUR VILLAGE, MALA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.) SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN SRI.SABU PULLAN SRI.GOKUL D. SUDHAKARAN** ## **RESPONDENT/STATE, COMPLAINANT AND DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 031.** - **2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE NEDUPUZHA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR - 680 007.** - **3 GREESHMA AGED 31 YEARS** **D/O. GANGADHARAN, CHETTIKKATTIL HOUSE, KOORKKANCHERRY VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK, PIN - 680 007.** **R3 BY ADV. K.K.RAJEEV** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **PP SREEJA V.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.08.2020, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.3114/2020(H), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.MC.3114/2020, Crl.MC.3116/2020** **4** ## **ORDER** **[ Crl.MC.3114/2020, Crl.MC.3116/2020 ] Dated this the 12th day of August 2020** Petitioners in Criminal M.C.3114/2020 are the accused in Crime No.506/2018 registered at the Nedupuzha Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 and 323 of IPC, now pending as C.C.No.2076/2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thrissur. The petitioner in Criminal M.C.No.3116/2020, who is the first petitioner in Criminal M.C.No.3114/2020, is the accused in Crime No.509/2018, registered at the Nedupuzha Police Station, for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465 and 468 of IPC. **Crl.MC.3114/2020, Crl.MC.3116/2020** **5** 2. The _de facto_ complainant in both crimes, is the wife of the first petitioners in Criminal M.C.No.3114/2020, the other petitoners being her inlaws. The de facto complainant, arrayed as the 3[rd] respondent, has filed affidavits (Annexure-II) in both cases, stating that the complaint, leading to registration of the crimes, was submitted by her on a misunderstanding, which has since been cleared and the disputes resolved amicably. It is stated that she has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners. 2. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also, who, on instructions, submits that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents. 3. Having considered the gravity of the offences alleged, nature of the injury caused and having perused the affidavit filed by the 3[rd] respondent, the **Crl.MC.3114/2020, Crl.MC.3116/2020** **6** contents of which are submitted to be true and voluntary, I am satisfied that the dispute is settled and no public interest is involved in this matter. Moreover, in view of the settlement, possibility of the criminal proceedings ending in conviction is remote. As such, continuance of the proceedings will amount to an abuse of process of court and hence, in view of the legal position set out by the Honourable Supreme Court in _**Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab**_ [(2008) 4 SCC 582] and _**Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another**_ [(2012) 10 SCC 303], there is no impediment in granting the relief sought. In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.2076/2018 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thrissur and Annexure-I FIR and the further proceedings in Crime **Crl.MC.3114/2020, Crl.MC.3116/2020** **7** No.509/2018 of Nedupuzha Police Station are quashed. SB/13/08/2020 **Sd/V.G.ARUN JUDGE** ## **APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 3114/2020** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURTII, THRISSUR TAKEN COGNIZANCE AS C.C.NO.2076/2018. ANNEXURE II AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE NOTARY PUBLIC DATED 18.06.2020.** **Crl.MC.3114/2020, Crl.MC.3116/2020** **9** ## **APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 3116/2020** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE I** **CERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME NO.509/2018 OF NEDUPUZHA POLICE STATION DATED 7.9.2018.** **ANNEXURE II** **AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE NOTARY PUBLIC DATED 18.06.2020.** // true copy // P.A to Judge