High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-12-08Quashed

Shaji Madhavan Nair; Sabu; Bibi Paulose; Sunil v. State of Kerala and M.K. Krishnan

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C. No. 8093 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
Judgment Date: 2016-12-08
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is allowed; the final report in CC 138/2016 and all proceedings against the petitioners are quashed. The High Court, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, held that the dispute is not grave, the offence does not pose a societal threat, and the amicable settlement coupled with ends of justice justifies quashing to promote peace and conserve judicial resources.
Final Disposition: Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Shaji Madhavan Nair
Sabu
Bibi Paulose
Sunil

Respondents

M.K. Krishnan
State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. C. P. Udayabhanu

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. M. P. Neethu
• Sri. Neethu Ravikumar
• Public Prosecutor Sri. Amjad Ali

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC filed by four accused (Shaji Madhavan Nair, Sabu, Bibi Paulose, and Sunil) challenging CC 138/2016 before the Judicial Magistrate of Piravom. The petition contends that the civil dispute arising from alleged overtake and construction of a road has been amicably resolved and that continuation of criminal proceedings would be unjust, oppressive, and a waste of judicial time. The respondents include the de facto complainant M.K. Krishnan and the State of Kerala, represented by the public prosecutor. The learned counsel for the first respondent submits that the dispute is personal and does not affect public peace, urging quashing to promote peace and harmony. The Public Prosecutor, though not opposing quashing in sweeping terms, expresses reservations about invoking 482 in such cases and notes no other cases against the petitioners. The High Court relies on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab to articulate that settlement between victim and wrongdoer can justify quashing where it serves ends of justice and prevents abuse of process. The court therefore exercises its extraordinary power under Section 482 CrPC, allowing the petition and quashing the final report in CC 138/2016 and all ensuing proceedings.”

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ends of justice
Abuse of process of law
Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised to quash criminal proceedings where there is a genuine amicable settlement between the victim and the wrongdoer, especially when continuing the case would hamper ends of justice and amount to abuse of process. They emphasize that the dispute was personal and not a matter of public peace, and that quashing would promote peace and harmony while saving judicial resources, given the lack of likelihood of conviction. They rely on the controlling principles laid down in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, which authorize quashing if ends of justice are secured by settlement and abuse of process is avoided.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents concede the settlement but warn against the broad exercise of 482 powers in cases involving public interest and potential abuse of the justice system. They contend that quashing should not be automatic in matters touching public resources and trust, and that the court must ensure that ends of justice are not defeated or that the public interest is not compromised. The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, notes the reservations about invoking extraordinary powers in such scenarios and emphasizes caution in applying these precedents to preserve the integrity of the criminal justice process.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 (10) SCC 303	Positive	Used to justify quashing criminal proceedings in appropriate cases where amicable settlement exists and ends of justice would be served; supports exercise of Section 482 powers.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	2014 (6) SCC 466	Positive	Reiterates the principle that settlement to end proceedings can be a valid ground to secure ends of justice and prevent abuse of process; cited to reinforce the holding.

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 Madhavan Nair; Sabu; Bibi Paulose; Sunil v. State of Kerala and M.K. Krishnan 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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 8093 of 2016 ()** **---------------------------** **CC 138/2016 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PIRAVOM CRIME NO. 398/2006 OF MULANTHURUTHY POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM** **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:** **-------------------------** ## **1. SHAJI MADHAVAN NAIR** - **AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.MADHAVAN NAIR, NIRAVATH HOUSE, PAINGARAPPILLY P O, ERNAKULAM.** **2. SABU** - **AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.KUMARAN, KOTTARATHUMYALIL VEEDU, THURUTHIKKARA DESOM, MULANTHURUTHY.** **3. BIBI PAULOSE** **AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.PAULOSE, CHENNAMKULATHIL VEEDU, PAINGARAPPILLY KARA, MULANTHURUTHY.** **4. SUNIL** - **AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.SASI, KALTHIL VEEDU, MANJALIKARAYIL, KARIMALOOR VILLAGE, NORTH PARAVOOR TALUK.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:** - **--------------------------** **1. M.K.KRISHNAN, 69, S/O.KUTTY, MELEPPILLY VEEDU, ARAKKUNNAM KARA, MULATHURUTHY VILLAGE.** **Crl.MC.No. 8093 of 2016 ()** ## **---------------------------** ## **2. STATE OF KERALA** **REPRESENTED BY THE S I POLICE, MULANTHURUTHY POLICE STATION, (CRIME NO 398/2006) REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM.** **R1 BY ADV. SMT.M.P.NEETHU R1 BY ADV. SMT.NEETHU RAVIKUMAR R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.MC.No. 8093 of 2016 () ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES** **-----------------------** **ANNEXURE I A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC 138/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF JFCM COURT, PIRAVOM** **ANNEXURE II AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY R1 THE DE FACTO COMPLAINT IN ANNEXURE-I** **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL -----------------------** ## **TRUE COPY** **P.A. TO JUDGE.** **kp** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 8093 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 8[th] December, 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **ORDER** - 1.This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') with a prayer to invoke the extraordinary inherent powers and to quash the pending criminal proceedings. - 2.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.138 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of - 1[st] Class, Piravom. The 2[nd] respondent is the de facto complaint. - 3.The prosecution allegation is that the petitioners herein with intent to cheat the general public took over the construction of a road and in violation of the trust reposed on them constructed a non-motorable road. Allegation is also levelled that the petitioners had appropriated some materials with intent to gain unlawfully. Crl.M.C. No.8093 of 2016 -2- - 4.Heard the submissions advanced. - 5.The learned counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. According to him, it was at the instance of his neighbours that the complaint was filed. Attention of this Court is invited to the affidavit filed by him to buttress his submission. It is urged that the dispute is purely personal in nature and would not affect public peace or tranquility. Summing up it is prayed that the criminal proceedings be terminated to promote peace and harmony. - 6.The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions has expressed his reservations in the matter of quashing the proceedings on the basis of settlement. It is submitted that the invocation of powers under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is not warranted. However, it is submitted that no other cases are reported Crl.M.C. No.8093 of 2016 -3- against the petitioners. 7.In **Gian singh v. State of Punjab [** 2012 (10) SCC 303] Apex Court has laid down that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. It was observed as follows : _“61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”_ 8.The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in **Narinder singh v. State of Punjab. [** 2014 (6) SCC 466], the pertinent observations which are as under: Crl.M.C. No.8093 of 2016 -4- ## _XXXXXXXXXXXX_ _29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:_ _(i) ends of justice, or_ _(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives._ _xxxxxxx_ _xxxxxxx_ 9.The offence committed by the petitioners cannot be said to be grave and serious having ingredients of extreme mental depravity. It also does not appear that the offence in this case will have a serious impact on the society. It is felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and secure the ends of justice. Even otherwise, persisting with the prosecution would be nothing but a waste of time as the prospects of conviction would be bleak. Crl.M.C. No.8093 of 2016 -5- 10.Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court will be well justified in invoking its extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings. In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-I final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.C.No.138 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of 1[st] Class, Piravom are quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE** kp/-8.12.16