High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeFinal disposal: The Crl.M.C. is allowed; Annexu...

Shaji Kottarathil and others v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:CRL.MC NO. 8041 OF 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • The Honourable Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath
Judgment Date
2022-11-29
Court Decision / Holding
CRL.MC is allowed. Annexure AII Final Report in Crime No.724/2020 of Chokli Police Station now pending as CP No.16/2021 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thalassery stands quashed.
Final Disposition
Final disposal: The Crl.M.C. is allowed; Annexure AII Final Report in Crime 724/2020 stands quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • SHAJI KOTTARATHIL
  • BABEESH PANOLI
  • MOHANAN KOTTARATHIL
  • VIJITH
  • SHERIN
  • SAYUJ PUTHUVATTATHIL
  • ASHIQUE VARAYIL
  • SHOON
  • VAISHNAV
  • ABHAY THULASEEPURAM
  • ANURAG THULASEEPURAM
  • RAJITH @ RANJITH
  • BINU VATTAKUNNUMMAL @ VINOD
  • AKHIL
  • MIDHUN
  • VIJEESH MANAPPATTI
  • JISHNURAJ
  • AMAL VARAYIL

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
  • Anees Koovayil
  • Yazirul Arafath
  • Muhammed Minhaj T
  • Muhammed Nihal Nadakkoth
  • Hariz T.K
  • Thwaib Mannayott
  • Muhammed SIBIN POTTERI
  • Zinan T.K
  • Sinan T.K
  • Soopi EachiYil
  • Rinaz O.T.K

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • A. Arunkumar
  • •

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Smt. T.V. Neema (Senior Public Prosecutor)
  • • Satheeshan Alakkadan

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Cr.M.C filed for quashing Annexure AII Final Report in Crime No.724/2020 of Chokli Police Station, Kannur, now pending as C.P. No.16/2021 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thalassery. Petitioners 1-18 (the accused) seek quashing on the ground that the entire dispute with the de facto complainant has been amicably settled, and continuing proceedings would be unwarranted. Respondents 2-12 (injured/de facto complainant) appeared through counsel and filed affidavits. The prosecution, on instruction, confirms that the matter was investigated and a statement by the de facto complainant indicates settlement. The court notes the offences involve IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324 and 308 r/w 149, but observes that the dispute is purely personal and will not adversely affect public interest. The Supreme Court precedents cited (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab; Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan) are invoked to support quashing under S.482 Cr.P.C despite the bar under S.320 Cr.P.C when ends of justice require. The court holds that no purpose is served by continuing proceedings and quashes Annexure AII Final Report. The order emphasizes settlement and ends of justice rather than punishment, and finds the offences not within non-compoundable category for this case.

Provisions of Law Cited

IPC: Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 308 read with 149Cr.P.C.: Section 482Cr.P.C.: Section 320

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Ends of justice (principle allowing quashing to prevent abuse of process)
  • Principle of compounding of offences under Cr.P.C.
  • Quashing of proceedings in light of settlements under S.482 Cr.P.C.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Petitioners contend that the dispute is personal and has been amicably settled; the de facto complainant has decided not to pursue the matter; quashing is warranted in the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process, since the offences cited are non-prohibitive for compounding given the settlement.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents support settlement; they contend there is no public interest adversely affected; the matter was amicably settled after investigation; quashing would serve the ends of justice and avoid unnecessary continuance of proceedings.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)PositiveCited as authority for quashing proceedings under S.482 Cr.P.C in the context of settlements where public interest is not affected and to prevent abuse of process.
Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others(2014) 6 SCC 466PositiveCited for principle that High Courts may quash non-compoundable offences in light of settlement and ends of justice.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others(2019) 5 SCC 688PositiveCited to reinforce the discretionary power to quash under S.482 Cr.P.C despite bar in S.320 Cr.P.C in appropriate circumstances.

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 Kottarathil and others 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.

``` CRL.MC NO. 8041 OF 2022 ``` ``` 1 ``` ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH`** ``` TUESDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 8041 OF 2022 ``` ## **`CRIME NO.724/2020 OF Chokli Police Station, Kannur`** ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED:`** ``` 1SHAJI KOTTARATHIL AGED 48 YEARS S/O CHANDU, KOTTARATHIL HOUSE, PERINGATHOOR AMSOM, KIDANJI , KANNUR-673316. 2BABEESH PANOLI AGED 32 YEARS S/O CHANTHU, PANOLI HOUSE, PERINGATHOOR AMSOM, PULIYANAMBRUM, KIDANJI, KANNUR-673316. 3MOHANAN KOTTARATHIL AGED 57 YEARS S/O ANANDAN KOTTARATHIL HOUSE, PERINGATHOOR AMSOM, KIDANJI , KANNUR-673316. 4VIJITH AGED 25 YEARS S/O UTHAMAN , MEETHALE KOMATH HOUSE, PERINGATHOOR AMSOM, KIDANJI, KANNUR-673316. 5SHERIN AGED 24 YEARS S/O DINESHAN , ASWATHI VILLA, PERINGATHOOR AMSOM, KIDANJI , KANNUR-673316. 6SAYUJ PUTHUVATTATHIL AGED 24 YEARS S/O VIJAYAN , PUTHUVATTATHIL HOUSE, PULIYANABRAM, PERINGATHOOR AMSOM, KIDANJI,KANNUR-673316 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 8041 OF 2022 ``` ``` 2 ``` |`7`|`ASHIQUE VARAYIL`| |---|---| ||`AGED 25 YEARS`| ||`S/O SAJEEVAN ,`| ||`VARAYIL HOUSE, PERINGATHOOR AMSOM, KIDANJI ,`| ||`KANNUR-673316.`| |`8`|`SHOON`| ||`AGED 21 YEARS`| ||`S/O DINESHAN,`| ||`ASWATHI VILLA, PERINGATHOOR AMSOM, KIDANJI ,`| ||`KANNUR-673316.`| |`9`|`VAISHNAV,AGED 23 YEARS`| ||`S/O SAJEEVAN ,`| ||`KOVUMMAL HOUSE, PERINGATHOOR AMSOM, KIDANJI ,`| ||`KANNUR-673316.`| |`10`|`ABHAY THULASEEPURAM`| ||`AGED 20 YEARS`| ||`S/O VINOD KUMAR ,`| ||`THULASEEPURAM HOUSE, PERINGATHOOR AMSOM,`| ||`KIDANJI,`| ||`KANNUR-673316., PIN - 673316`| |`11`|`ANURAG THULASEEPURAM, AGED 20 YEARS`| ||`S/O SASEENDRAN ,`| ||`THULASEEPURAM HOUSE, PERINGATHOOR AMSOM,`| ||`KIDANJI,`| ||`KANNUR-673316, PIN - 673316`| |`12`|`RAJITH @ RANJITH, AGED 28 YEARS`| ||`S/O RAJAN,`| ||`V.K.NIVAS, PERINGATHOOR AMSOM, KIDANJI ,`| ||`KANNUR-673316.`| |`13`|`BINU VATTAKUNNUMMAL @ VINOD`| ||`AGED 40 YEARS`| ||`S/O KELAPPAN,`| ||`SREE LEKSHMI HOUSE, PERINGATHOOR AMSOM, KIDANJI ,`| ||`KANNUR-673316.`| |`14`|`AKHIL`| ||`AGED 25 YEARS`| ||`S/O PAVITHRAN,`| ||`KUNIYIL HOUSE, PERINGATHOOR AMSOM, KIDANJI ,`| ||`KANNUR-673316.`| |`15`|`MIDHUN`| ||`AGED 24 YEARS`| ||`S/O MANOJ,`| ||`KUNIYIL HOUSE, PERINGATHOOR AMSOM, KIDANJI ,`| ||`KANNUR-673316., PIN – 673316`| ``` CRL.MC NO. 8041 OF 2022 ``` ``` 3 ``` - `16 VIJEESH MANAPPATTI AGED 32 YEARS S/O KANARAN, AKAVALAPPIL HOUSE, PERINGATHOOR AMSOM, KIDANJI , KANNUR-673316` - `17 JISHNURAJ AGED 22 YEARS S/O RAGAVAN, MADATHIL HOUSE, PERINGATHOOR AMSOM, KIDANJI , KANNUR-673316.` - `18 AMAL VARAYIL, AGED 22 YEARS S/O SAJEEVAN VARAYIL HOUSE, PERINGATHOOR AMSOM, KIDANJI , KANNUR-673316.` - `BY ADV A.ARUNKUMAR` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - `1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.` - `2 ANEES KOOVAYIL, AGED 20 YEARS S/O MUHAMMED, KOOVAYIL ,KIDANJI, PERINGATHUR AMSOM, KIDANJI CHOKLI, KANNUR -670 675` - `3 YAZIRUL ARAFATH, AGED 21 YEARS S/O SULAIMAN PUTHUKKUDI,` - `PUTHUKODI HOUSE,,P.O,KIDANJI, CHOKLI, KANNUR -670 675` - `4 MUHAMMED MINHAJ T, AGED 18 YEARS S/O MAHAROOF T, THURUTHIYIL HOUSE,PERINGATHUR AMSOM, P.O,KIDANJI, CHOCKLI, KANNUR -670675` - `5 MUHAMMED NIHAL NADAKKOTH, AGED 19 YEARS S/O IBRAHIM NADAKKOTH,` - `NADAKKOTH HOUSE, PERINGATHUR AMSOM, P.O,KIDANJI, KANNUR -670 675` - `6 HARIZ T.K, AGED 43 YEARS S/O POKKER, PERINGATHUR AMSOM, P.O,KIDANJI, CHOKLI, KANNUR -670 675` - `7 THWAIB MANNAYOTT, AGED 30 YEARS S/O ABDULLA MANNAYOTT MANNAYOT HOUSE, PERINGATHUR AMSOM, KIDANJI , KANNUR -670 675` ``` CRL.MC NO. 8041 OF 2022 ``` ``` 4 ``` ``` 8MUHAMMED SIBIN POTTERI AGED 20 YEARS S/O RASHED POTERI, POTTERI HOUSE, PERINGATHUR AMSOM P.O,KIDANJI, CHOCKLI, KANNUR -670 675 9ZINAN T.K AGED 20 YEARS S/O NAZAR MANNAYOTT, MANNAYOTT HOUSE, PERINGATHUR AMSOM, P.O,KIDANJI, CHOCKLI, KANNUR -670675. 10SINAN T.K AGED 19 YEARS S/O.MAHAMOOD THEEYATHIKADAVATH, THEEYATHIKADAVATH HOUSE, PERINGATHUR AMSOM, KIDANJI, CHOCKLI, KANNUR -670675. 11SOOPI EACHIYIL AGED 55 YEARS S/O ABDULLA, EACHIYIL HOUSE, PERINGATHUR AMSOM, P.O, KIDANJI, KANNUR -670675 12RINAZ O.T.K AGED 20 YEARS S/O RAFEEQ OTK, OTK HOUSE, PERINGATHUR AMSOM, P.O,KIDANJI, CHOCKLI,KANNUR -670 675 ``` ``` R1 BY SMT.T.V.NEEMA-SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR R2 TO R12 BY ADV SATHEESHAN ALAKKADAN ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 8041 OF 2022 ``` ``` 5 ``` ## O R D E R This Crl.M.C. has been preferred to quash Annexure AII Final Report in Crime No.724/2020 of Chokli Police Station now pending as C.P.No.16/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thalassery on the ground of settlement between the parties. 2. The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 18. The 2[nd] respondent is the de facto complainant and respondent Nos.3 to 12 are the injured. 3. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324 and 308 r/w 149 of IPC. 4. The respondent Nos.2 to 12 entered appearance through counsel. The affidavits sworn in by them are also produced. 5. I have heard Sri.A.Arunkumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Satheeshan Alakkadan, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 12 and Smt.T.V.Neema, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. ``` CRL.MC NO. 8041 OF 2022 ``` ``` 6 ``` 6. The averments in the petition as well as the affidavits sworn in by the respondent Nos.2 to 12 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 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 ``` CRL.MC NO. 8041 OF 2022 ``` ``` 7 ``` 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 AII Final Report. 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 AII Final Report in Crime No.724/2020 of Chokli Police Station now pending as C.P.No.16/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thalassery hereby stands quashed. Sd/- ## DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE ab ``` CRL.MC NO. 8041 OF 2022 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 8041/2022`** |`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`|| |---|---| |`Annexure AI`|`CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.724`| ||`OF 2020 OF CHOCKLI POLICE STATION, KANNUR`| |`Annexure AII`|`CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN`| ||`CHOCKLI POLICE CRIME NO. 724 OF 2020 FILED`| ||`BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE`| ||`COURT THALASSERY`| |`Annexure AIII`|`ORIGINAL COPY OF THE AFFIDAVITS SWORN TO`| ||`BY RESPONDENTS NO: 2`| |`Annexure AIV`|`ORIGINAL COPY OF THE AFFIDAVITS SWORN TO`| ||`BY RESPONDENTS NO: 3`| |`Annexure AV`|`ORIGINAL COPY OF THE AFFIDAVITS SWORN TO`| ||`BY RESPONDENTS NO: 4`| |`Annexure AVI`|`ORIGINAL COPY OF THE AFFIDAVITS SWORN TO`| ||`BY RESPONDENTS NO: 5`| |`Annexure AVII`|`ORIGINAL COPY OF THE AFFIDAVITS SWORN TO`| ||`BY RESPONDENTS NO: 6`| |`Annexure VIII`|`ORIGINAL COPY OF THE AFFIDAVITS SWORN TO`| ||`BY RESPONDENTS NO: 7`| |`Annexure IX`|`ORIGINAL COPY OF THE AFFIDAVITS SWORN TO`| ||`BY RESPONDENTS NO: 8`| |`Annexure AX`|`ORIGINAL COPY OF THE AFFIDAVITS SWORN TO`| ||`BY RESPONDENTS NO: 9`| |`Annexure XI`|`ORIGINAL COPY OF THE AFFIDAVITS SWORN TO`| ||`BY RESPONDENTS NO: 10`| |`Annexure XII`|`ORIGINAL COPY OF THE AFFIDAVITS SWORN TO`| ||`BY RESPONDENTS NO: 11`| |`Annexure XIII`|`ORIGINAL COPY OF THE AFFIDAVITS SWORN TO`| ||`BY RESPONDENTS NO: 12`| RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL