High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed; Crl.M.C. allowed; Annexure A7 quashed ...

Shaji K.M. and others v. State of Kerala and others

Case / Petition Number:CRL.M.C. No. 4387 of 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Dr. Kauser Edappagath
Judgment Date
2022-10-13
Court Decision / Holding
Crl.M.C. is allowed; Annexure A7 court charge in SC No.167/2016 stands quashed.
Final Disposition
Quashed; Crl.M.C. allowed; Annexure A7 quashed in SC No.167/2016

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Shaji K.M
  • Orkool Gangadharaman
  • N.K. Krishnan
  • Kavuthiyan Valappil Upendran
  • Malappacherry Rajan
  • Deepesh Pallathuvayal
  • Sathyan V.T.
  • M. Rajan
  • Rathnakaran.V.T.
  • C.K. Krishnan
  • Gramam
  • Narapokkan
  • P.R. Balakrishnan
  • Ananthan
  • A.V. Balakrishnan
  • Maiyankode Andi
  • Vannapurakkal Venu
  • Ranjith.K.M
  • Praveen @ Pravi
  • Sreejith
  • Rameshan.K
  • Vijayadas.P.V
  • Rameshan
  • Edakkoman Sukumaran
  • Neethu @ Nidhin
  • Kanunda Sukumaran
  • Pradeepan.K
  • Sudheesh Kanathadam
  • Prakashan.K

Respondents

  • State of Kerala, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
  • C. Balakrishnan
  • K. Bineesh
  • Bilsha
  • Usha

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Bonny Benny
  • • M. Ramesh Chander (Sr.)
  • • Balu Tom Bejoy Joseph P.J.
  • • Govind G. Nair

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Smt. T.V. Neema, Sr. PP

Case Synopsis & Summary

The High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, presided over by Dr. Kauser Edappagath, decided Crl.M.C. No. 4387 of 2022 on 13 October 2022. The petition, filed by 28 accused persons, sought to quash Annexure A7, a court charge in SC No. 167/2016 before the 1st Additional District & Sessions Court, Kasaragod. The offences alleged span multiple IPC provisions, including Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 427, 323, 324, 326, 354, 395, and 307, read with Section 149 IPC. It is noted that 307 was initially not charged but was added later in a private complaint. Affidavits from the de facto complainant and injured persons indicate the dispute is personal and has been amicably settled. The prosecution confirms that the matter was inquired into and settlement was recorded. The petition cites Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, to contend that under Section 482 Cr.P.C, a High Court may quash non‑compoundable offences where settlement justifies ends of justice and prevents abuse of process. The court agrees that the offences are not within the bar on compounding and that the dispute is private. Consequently, the M.C. is allowed and Annexure A7 is quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

IPC Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 427, 323, 324, 326, 354, 395, 307 read with Section 149 IPCCr.P.C. Section 482Cr.P.C. Section 320

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Ends of justice
  • Prevention of abuse of process of any Court
  • Compounding of offences

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners urge quashing Annexure A7 on the ground that the dispute is purely private and has been amicably settled. They contend that in light of settlement and the ends of justice, exercise of the HC’s inherent power under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C is warranted to prevent abuse of process and to avoid unnecessary harassment, especially since the offences are non-public in nature and not of the type prohibited from being compounded. They rely on Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, and Laxmi Narayan to support the permissible quashing where settlement exists.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents acknowledge the record of amicable settlement, supported by statements from the de facto complainant and affidavits. While their exact stance on quashing is not elaborated, the material indicates acceptance of the settlement and the court’s use of 482 Cr.P.C to consider ends of justice and potential closure of the matter, given the private nature of the dispute and absence of public interest.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)PositiveSupreme Court held that High Courts can quash non‑compoundable offences under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C where settlement exists and ends of justice are served.
Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others(2014) 6 SCC 466PositiveCements the principle that settlement can justify quashing under 482 Cr.P.C in appropriate private disputes.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others(2019) 5 SCC 688PositiveAffirms the discretionary power to quash where ends of justice and avoidance of abuse of process are maintained in light of settlement.

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 K.M. and others v. State of Kerala and others 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 DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH THURSDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 21ST ASWINA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 4387 OF 2022 CRIME NO.286/2010 OF Nileswar Police Station, Kasargod SC 167/2016 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - I, KASARAGOD** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:** 1 SHAJI.K.M AGED 42 YEARS KOYANMOOLA HOUSE, PULIKKAL, MADIKAI, PIN - 671314 2 ORKOOL GANGADHARAN AGED 61 YEARS KOLIKKUNNU, ORKOOL, MADAIKAI GRAMAM, PIN - 671314 3 N.K. KRISHNAN AGED 67 YEARS CHARTHANGAL, KORAVANTHALA, MADIKAI, PIN - 671314 4 KAVUTHIYAN VALAPPIL UPENDRAN AGED 49 YEARS ERIKKULAM, MADIKAI, PIN - 671314 5 MALAPPACHERRY RAJAN AGED 51 YEARS MALAPPACHERY, MADIKAI, PIN - 671314 6 DEEPESH PALLATHUVAYAL AGED 34 YEARS KAKKAD, PALLATHUVAYAL, MADIKAI, PIN - 671314 Crl.M.C.No.4387/2022 -:2:- 7 SATHYAN V.T. AGED 42 YEARS KAKKAD, PALLATHUVAYAL, MADIKAI GRAMAM, PIN - 671314 8 M.RAJAN AGED 51 YEARS KARUVALAPPU, P.O.KANHIRAPOYIL, AMBALATHARA GRAMAM, PIN - 671314 9 RATHNAKARAN.V.T., AGED 52 YEARS VADAKKANTHOTTAM, KAKKAD, BANKALAM, MADIKAI, PIN - 671314 10 C.K.KRISHNAN, AGED 72 YEARS S/O.RAMAN, CHEMBAKATHIL KEEZHIL HOUSE, ERIKKULAM, MADIKAI 11 GRAMAM, PIN - 671314 11 NARAPOKKAN, AGED 63 YEARS S/O. KORAN, NARA, ALAKKALAM, ERIKKULAM, MADIKAI, PIN - 671314 12 P.R.BALAKRISHNAN AGED 53 YEARS S/O.RAMAN, PILANKU HOUSE, PERALATHU, KANHIRAPOYIL, MADIKAI, PIN - 671314 13 ANANTHAN, AGED 53 YEARS S/O.PONNAN KUNHIRAMAN, ITHIKUNDU HOUSE, ALAKKULAM, ERIKKULAM PIN - 671314 14 A.V.BALAKRISHNAN AGED 66 YEARS S/O.KELU NAIR, MANIYARA HOUSE, NARA, ERIKKULAM, PIN - 671314 Crl.M.C.No.4387/2022 ## -:3:- - 15 MAIYANKODE ANDI,AGED 79 YEARS S/O.KARUTHAMBU, MAIYANKODE HOUSE, KOLIKKUNNU, MADIKAI PIN - 671314 16 VANNAPURAKKAL VENU AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.RAMAN, VANNAPURAKKAL HOUSE, KANHIRAPOYIL, AMBALATHARA, PIN - 671314 17 RANJITH.K.M, AGED 35 YEARS S/O.LEELA, KUNDENMOOLA, PULIKKAL, MADIKAI GRAMAM PIN - 671314 18 PRAVEEN @ PRAVI AGED 35 YEARS S/O.NANDINI, KUNDENMOOLA, PULIKKAL, MADIKAI, PIN - 671314 19 SREEJITH, AGED 43 YEARS S/O.SADANANDAN, PALLLATHUVAYAL ROAD, ERIKKLULAM, MADIKAI - PIN - 671314 20 RAMESHAN.K AGED 40 YEARS S/O.MADHAVI, KODATHANVALLI HOUSE, UMICHI, MALAPPACHERY, MADIKAI, PIN - 671314 21 VIJAYADAS. P.V AGED 37 YEARS S/O.NARAYANI, PADINJARE VEEDU, NANDANKUZHI, ERIKKULAM -, PIN - 671314 22 RAMESHAN, AGED 49 YEARS S/O.KUNHIKANNAN @ PULLANKANNAN, KANATHADAM HOUSE, MALAPPACHERRY, MADIKAI, PIN - 671314 23 EDAKKOMAN SUKUMARAN AGED 41 YEARS S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, EDAKKOMAN HOUSE, PALLATHUVAYAL, MADIKAI GRAMAM, PIN - 671314 Crl.M.C.No.4387/2022 -:4:- 24 NEETHU @ NIDHIN AGED 34 YEARS S/O. KANNOTH THAMBAN, MOONNU ROAD, ERIKKULAM, MADIKAI, PIN - 671314 25 KANUNDA SUKUMARAN AGED 60 YEARS S/O.KRISHNAN, PAYANGAPADAN HOUSE, KANUNDA, PULIKKAL-, PIN - 673637 26 PRADEEPAN.K AGED 40 YEARS S/O.K.KRISHNAN, KARANAKKAI HOUSE, PULIKKAL, MADIKAI., PIN - 671314 27 SUDHEESH KANATHADAM AGED 31 YEARS S/O.PRAPHULLA KUMARI AND KUMARAN, MANIYARA HOUSE, MALAPPACHERRY, KANATHADAM, MADIKAI-, PIN - 671314 28 PRAKASHAN.K AGED 39 YEARS S/O.BALAN(LATE), MOONU ROAD, ERIKKULAM, MADIKAI., PIN - 671314 BY ADVS.BONNY BENNY M.RAMESH CHANDER (SR.) BALU TOM BEJOY JOSEPH P.J. GOVIND G. NAIR ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANTS:** - 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI, PIN - 682682 - 2 C.BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 72 YEARS S/O.KOTTAN, RETIRED SUB INSPECTOR, RESIDING AT SASTHAMKAVU, MADIKAI VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, P.O.ERIKKULAM, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671314 Crl.M.C.No.4387/2022 -:5:- - 3 K.BINEESH, AGED 31 YEARS S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, CIVIL POLICE OFFICER, RESIDING AT, SHASTHAMKAVU, MADIKAI VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, P.O.MADIKAI, KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671 314. - 4 BILSHA, AGED 28 YEARS, D/O.BALAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT NARAYAN NIVAS, KARICHERY, THAKKIL VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, PIN - 671319 - 5 USHA, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O.BALAKRISHNAN, SHASTHAMKAVU, MADIKAI VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, P.O.MADIKAI, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN – 671314 SMT. T.V.NEEMA, SR. PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.No.4387/2022 ## -:6:- ## **O R D E R** Dated this the 13[th] day of October, 2022 This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure A7 court charge in S.C.No.167/2016 on the file of the 1[st] Additional District & Sessions Court, Kasaragod on the ground of settlement between the parties. 2. The petitioners are the accused. The 2[nd] respondent is the defacto complainant and respondent Nos.3 to 5 are the injured persons. 3. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 427, 323, 324, 326, 354, 395, 307, read with Section 149 of IPC. Even though the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC is alleged, a reading of Annexure A1 private complaint would show that the offence under Section 307 of IPC is not prima facie attracted. The allegation is that only the 8[th] accused hit on the nose of the defacto complainant with a stone. Admittedly, all the remaining accused only beat the victims with hands. The said allegation is hardly sufficient enough to attract the offence under Section 307 of IPC. That apart, initially, when the police registered the crime Section 307 of IPC was not incorporated. It was thereafter, the Crl.M.C.No.4387/2022 -:7:- defacto complainant filed a private complaint adding Section 307 as well. 4. Affidavits sworn in by the defacto complainant and the injured persons are produced. 5. I have heard Sri. Bonny Benny, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. T.V. Neema, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 6. The averments in the petition as well as the affidavit sworn in by the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 would show that the entire dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the _de facto_ complainant has decided not to proceed with the criminal proceedings further. The learned Prosecutor, on instruction, submits that the matter was enquired into through the investigating officer and a statement of the _de facto_ complainant was also recorded wherein he reported that the matter was amicably settled. 7. The Apex Court in _**Gian Singh v. State of Punjab**_ [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)], _**Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others**_ [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and in _**State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others**_ [(2019) 5 SCC 688] has held that the High Court by invoking S.482 of Cr.P.C Crl.M.C.No.4387/2022 -:8:- can quash criminal proceedings in relation to non compoundable offence where the parties have settled the matter between themselves notwithstanding the bar under S.320 of Cr.P.C. if it is warranted in the given facts and circumstances of the case or to ensure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court. 8. The dispute in the above case is purely personal in nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely affected by quashing the proceedings pursuant to Annexure A7. The offences in question do not fall within the category of offences prohibited for compounding in terms of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in _**Gian Singh**_ (supra), _**Narinder Singh**_ (supra) and _**Laxmi Narayan**_ (supra). For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that no purpose will be served in proceeding with the matter any further. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure A7 court charge in S.C.No.167/2016 on the file of the 1[st] Additional District & Sessions Court, Kasaragod hereby stands quashed. Sd/- ## **DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH** **JUDGE** **kp** Crl.M.C.No.4387/2022 -:9:- ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4387/2022** PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED BY 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, HOSDURG DATED 14.08.2013 Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT GIVEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11.01.2021. Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT GIVEN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 11.01.2021. Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT GIVEN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 11.01.2021. Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT GIVEN BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 11.01.2021. Annexure A6 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.MC 515/21 DATED 27.04.2021. Annexure A7 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COURT CHARGE IN SC NO.167/2016 DATED 3.10.2018 BEFORE THE HON'BLE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT KASARGOD