High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeFIR and all further proceedings quashed against...

Shaji Devasia, Subin Devasia, Sethu G. S. and Kevin S. Chacko v. State of Kerala, Keezhvaipur Police Station, Jiji Abraham, Aleyamma Jiji, Jacob Abraham and Rij u Abraham

Case / Petition Number:CRL.M.C. No. 202 of 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C. S. Dias
Judgment Date
2024-03-12
Court Decision / Holding
The petition is allowed; Annexure-I FIR in Crime No. 841/2023 and all further proceedings against the petitioners are quashed.
Final Disposition
FIR and all further proceedings quashed against the petitioners.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Shaji Devasia
  • Subin Devasia
  • Sethu G. S.
  • Kevin S Chacko

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
  • The Station House Officer Keezhvaipur Police Station, Keezhvaipur Pathanamthitta District
  • Jiji Abraham
  • Aleyamma Jiji
  • Jacob Abraham
  • Riju Abraham

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Ajith Murali
  • • Swapna Vijayan Mohanan M.K.

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Smt. Seetha S. (Public Prosecutor)
  • • Sri. P.V. Dileep

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case under section 482 CrPC challenges FIR No. 841/2023 of Keezhvaipur Police Station, Pathanamthitta, registered on 14 December 2023, along with all proceedings arising therefrom. Accused Nos. 1–4 (Shaji Devasia, Subin Devasia, Sethu G. S., and Kevin S. Chacko) are charged under IPC sections 143, 147, 149, 451, 294(b), 323, and 427 read with 34. The core dispute is a personal enmity arising from an alleged elopement involving the sister of the fourth accused and the son of the third respondent, which led to a confrontation in the third respondent’s courtyard. The petition contends that the parties have amicably settled their disputes out of court; the respondents 3–6 have sworn affidavits (Annexures B to E) stating no objection to quashing. The learned counsel for the petitioners argues that quashing is necessary to secure ends of justice, given the non-serious nature of the offences, lack of public interest, and the remote possibility of conviction. The respondents support the settlement, and the Investigating Officer confirms its genuineness. The High Court, relying on Gian Singh and Parbatbhai Aahir, holds that where there is an amicable settlement and the offences are not serious, quashing is warranted. The court accordingly allows the Crl.M.C and quashes Annexure-I FIR and all further proceedings against the petitioners.

Provisions of Law Cited

CrPC, 1973, Section 482Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 143, 147, 149, 451, 294(b), 323, 427 read with Section 34

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Ends of justice
  • Inherent power of High Court under Section 482 CrPC
  • Amicable settlement as basis to quash proceedings
  • Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012 (10) SCC 303
  • Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur v. State of Gujarat, 2017 (9) SCC 641

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that the dispute with respondents 3 to 6 has been amicably settled out of court. The respondents 3 to 6 have sworn affidavits (Annexures B–E) stating no grievance and no objection to quashing further proceedings. They urge the High Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR and all further proceedings, given the non-serious nature of the offences and the lack of public interest, with minimal chances of conviction.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents 3 to 6 have no subsisting grievance against the petitioners; the Investigating Officer verifi es the settlement; the dispute is settled. The Public Prosecutor concurs that the matter is amicably settled and does not oppose quashing in light of the settlement and the non-serious nature of offences.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab2012 (10) SCC 303PositiveCited to support exercise of inherent power to quash where amicable settlement exists and the offence is not serious; ends of justice.
Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others v. State of Gujarat and another(2017) 9 SCC 641PositiveCited for the principle that quashing is permissible where settlement exists and offences are not serious, to secure 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 Shaji Devasia, Subin Devasia, Sethu G. S. and Kevin S. Chacko v. State of Kerala, Keezhvaipur Police Station, Jiji Abraham, Aleyamma Jiji, Jacob Abraham and Rij u Abraham 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 C.S.DIAS ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 202 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.841/2023 OF KEEZHVAIPUR POLICE STATION, ``` ## **`PATHANAMTHITTA`** ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS 1 TO 4:`** - **`1 SHAJI DEVASIA AGED 51 YEARS S/O DEVASIA JOSEPH, KOCHU PARAMBIL KATTATHARA HOUSE, ANNIKADU WESTP.O., ANNIKADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 686503`** - **`2 SUBIN DEVASIA AGED 38 YEARS S/O DEVASIA JOSEPH, KOTTATHARA HOUSE, ANNIKADU WEST P.O., ANNIKADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT., PIN - 686503`** - **`3 SETHU G. S. AGED 40 YEARS S/O SUBHASH P.N., GOPURATHIL HOUSE, KUNNAMTHANAM, KUNNAMTHANAM (PO), PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 689581`** - **`4 KEVIN S CHACKO AGED 24 YEARS S/O SHIBU CHACKO, MANNIL VEEDU, ANICADU P.O, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 689585 BY ADVS. AJITH MURALI SWAPNA VIJAYAN MOHANAN M.K.`** ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031`** - **`2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER KEEZHVAIPUR POLICE STATION, KEEZHVAIPUR , PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 689587`** - **`3 JIJI ABRAHAM`** Crl.M.C.No.202 of 2024 _-:2:-_ ``` AGED 58 YEARS S/O ABRAHAM K.T, KOTHAPLAKKAL HOUSE, EDAMURIKKAPADI, ANIKKAD P.O, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 689585 ``` - **`4 ALEYAMMA JIJI AGED 55 YEARS`** ``` W/O JIJI ABRAHAM, KOTHAPLAKKAL HOUSE , EDAMURIKKAPADI , ANIKAD P.O, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 689585 ``` - **`5 JACOB ABRAHAM AGED 56 YEARS`** - **`S/O ABRAHAM K.T, KOTHAPLAKKAL HOUSE, EDAMURIKKAPADI, ANIKKAD P.O, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 689585`** - **`6 RIJU ABRAHAM AGED 31 YEARS`** - **`S/O JOCOB ABRAHAM , KOTHAPLAKKAL HOUSE, EDAMURIKKAPADI, ANIKKAD P.O, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN – 689585`** ``` R1 & R2 BY SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SEETHA S. R3 TO R6 BY SRI. P.V. DILEEPS ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ``` ## **`12.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:`** Crl.M.C.No.202 of 2024 _-:3:-_ Dated this the 12[th] day of March, 2024 ## **O R D E R** The petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, to quash Annexure-A First Information Report[FIR] in Crime No.841/2023 of the Keezhvaipur Police Station, Pathanamthitta and all further proceedings pursuant to it. 2. The petitioners are the accused 1 to 4 in the above crime, registered against them at the instance of the third respondent, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 451, 294(b), 323, 427 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860. 3. The crux of the prosecution is that: on 13.12.2023, the sister of the 4[th] accused had eloped with the son of the third respondent. On account of Crl.M.C.No.202 of 2024 _-:4:-_ the said enmity, the third respondent and the accused along with two identifiable persons had an altercation in the courtyard of the third respondent. In the said altercation, the accused committed the above offences. 4. Heard; Sri.Ajith Murali, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt. Seetha S, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Sri.P.V Dileep, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 6. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the subject matter in dispute between the petitioners and the respondents 3 to 6/injured has been amicably settled out of court and the respondents 3 to 6 have no subsisting grievance as against the petitioners, and they have voluntarily executed Annexures B to E affidavits, stating that they have no objection in all further proceedings in the above crime being quashed. Hence, the petition may Crl.M.C.No.202 of 2024 _-:5:-_ be allowed. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the Investigating Officer has ascertained and reported that the subject matter in dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the respondents 3 to 6 have voluntarily executed Annexures B to E affidavits. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 6 also submitted that the dispute between the parties has been settled and the said respondents have no subsisting grievance as against the petitioners. The said submission is recorded. 8. 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 the facts and circumstances of the case and to secure the ends of justice, where the _-:6:-_ Crl.M.C.No.202 of 2024 High Court is satisfied that an amicable settlement has been arrived at between the parties and the offence is not serious in nature involving mental depravity, criminal proceedings may be quashed. 9. On a consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials on record, especially after going through Annexures B to E affidavits sworn in by the respondents 3 to 6, which has been found to be genuine and bona fide by the Investigating Officer, I am convinced and satisfied that this is a fit case to exercise the inherent power of this Court, particularly since the alleged offences are not serious in nature, no public interest is involved, the chances of conviction is remote, the continuation of the proceeding would only be wastage of judicial time and the settlement would augur harmony in society. Hence, I am inclined to allow the petition. In the result, the Crl.M.C is allowed by quashing Crl.M.C.No.202 of 2024 _-:7:-_ Annexure-I First Information Report[FIR] in Crime No.841/2023 of Keezhvaipur Police Station, Pathanamthitta and all further proceedings as against the petitioners. The Crl.M.C is ordered accordingly. SD/- **C.S.DIAS,JUDGE** rmm/12/3/2024 Crl.M.C.No.202 of 2024 _-:8:-_ ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 202/2024`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure-AA TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.841/2023 IN KEEZHVAIPUR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT DATED 14.12.2023. Annexure-BA TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Annexure-CA TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. Annexure-DA TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT. Annexure-EA TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT. ```