High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashment allowed; final report and all further...

Shibu K. Daniel and Others v. State of Kerala and Jainamma Philipose and Others

Case / Petition Number:CRL.MC NO.7300 OF 2024
Neutral Citation:2025:KER:23123

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C. Jayachandran
Judgment Date
2025-03-14
Court Decision / Holding
In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Final Report in Crime No.1058/2019 and all further proceedings in CC No.1702/2019 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thiruvalla, are hereby quashed.
Final Disposition
Quashment allowed; final report and all further proceedings quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Shibu K Daniel
  • Shiju K Daniel
  • K. Daniel

Respondents

  • State of Kerala
  • Jainamma Philipose
  • Philose
  • Skariah

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • M.T. Sureshkumar
  • • Manjusha K
  • • Sreelakshmi Sabu

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri.E.C.Bineesh, Public Prosecutor
  • • Sri Jose Antony for R2 and R3

Case Synopsis & Summary

This CRL.M.C. concerns a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR in Keezhvaipur Police Station Crime No.1058/2019 and the subsequent proceedings in CC No.1702/2019 (JFCM, Thiruvalla). The petitioners-accused nos.1 to 3 seek quashment on the strength of a settlement arrived at with the defacto complainant and injured (respondents 2 and 3) and the affidavits annexed to Annexures A3 and A4, which allege that the disputes have been settled and that there is no surviving grievance. The court recorded statements of the defacto complainant and the injured, who stated they did not wish to continue with the case, while the affidavits sworn voluntarily by respondents 2–4 corroborate the bonafide settlement. The court referred to established jurisprudence beginning with Kulwinder Singh (2007) 4 CTC 769 and approved by Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303, Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466, and Madan Mohan Abbot (2008) 4 SCC 582, to justify exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC when settlement is genuine and the ends of justice require ending the criminal proceedings. The court noted that offences 323 and 341 are compoundable and that continuing proceedings would amount to abuse of process. Consequently, the Crl.M.C. is allowed, and the final report in Crime No.1058/2019 and all further proceedings in CC No.1702/2019 are quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of CrPCSection 320 of CrPCSection 307 of IPCSection 294(b) IPCSection 323 IPCSection 341 IPCSection 379 IPCSection 406 IPCSection 409 IPCSection 418 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Inherent power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC to secure ends of justice.
  • Kulwinder Singh guidelines (2007) for quashing under 482 where there is a voluntary and fair settlement.
  • Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 — approval of the Kulwinder Singh guidelines.
  • Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 — parameters for exercise of inherent power in quashing.
  • Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008) 4 SCC 582 — common-sense approach to private disputes and settlement; avoiding abuse of process.
  • Ends of justice; settlement as a basis to avoid abuse of process and to conserve judicial resources.
  • Comments on compoundability of offences (323 and 341) supporting quashment when settlements are genuine.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that the FIR arises from private disputes and the parties have arrived at a settlement; the defacto complainant and the injured have sworn to no objection; affidavits annexed corroborate the bonafide nature of the settlement; the offences involved (294(b), 323, 341) are either minor or compoundable (with 323 and 341 explicitly noted as compoundable). They urge exercise of inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash to prevent abuse of process and to secure ends of justice, following Kulwinder Singh, Gian Singh, Narinder Singh and Madan Mohan Abbot. Quashing will save judicial time and avoid harassment, without compromising public interest.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents support quashing in light of the settlement, pointing to the statements of the defacto complainant and injured indicating no further grievance; they rely on the settled jurisprudence (Kulwinder Singh; Gian Singh; Narinder Singh; Madan Mohan Abbot) to argue that a genuine settlement can justify quashment of proceedings under the inherent powers, as long as it ensures ends of justice and does not undermine public interest; they contend that the offences involved are such that ending the proceedings is appropriate given the voluntary and bona fide settlement.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Kulwinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another[(2007) 4 CTC 769]PositiveFive-judge bench laid down guidelines on quashing under 482 in cases involving non-compoundable offences; recognized settlement as basis for quashing when voluntary and fair.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another[(2012) 10 SCC 303]PositiveSupreme Court approved and applied the Kulwinder Singh guidelines in quashing based on settlement.
Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab[(2014) 6 SCC 466]PositiveParameters for invoking inherent power to quash refined by settlement-related considerations.
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab[(2008) 4 SCC 582]PositiveCommon-sense approach; settlement in private disputes can justify quashing under 482 to conserve resources.

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 Shibu K. Daniel and Others v. State of Kerala and Jainamma Philipose and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

``` 2025:KER:23123 ``` **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1946 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 7300 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.1058/2019 OF KEEZHVAIPUR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA ``` ``` IN CC NO.1702 OF 2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, THIRUVALLA ``` ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3:`** ``` 1SHIBU K DANIEL AGED 40 YEARS S/O DANIEL, KUNNATHUPADICKAL VEEDU, KOOTHADIMANNU, THANNITHODU VILLAGE, KONNITALUK , THANNITHODU P O, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. PIN-, PIN - 689699 ``` ``` 2SHIJU K DANIEL AGED 34 YEARS ``` ``` S/O DANIEL, KUNNATHUPADICKAL VEEDU, KOOTHADIMANNU, THANNITHODU VILLAGE, KONNITALUK , THANNITHODU P O, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 689699 ``` ``` 3K.DANIEL AGED 73 YEARS S/O MD DANIEL, KUNNATHUPADICKAL VEEDU, KOOTHADIMANNU, THANNITHODU VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK, THANNITHODU P O, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT ., PIN - 689699 ``` ``` BY ADVS. M.T.SURESHKUMAR MANJUSHA K SREELAKSHMI SABU ``` ``` RESPONDENTS: ``` ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ``` Crl.M.C.No.7300 of 2024 ``` ``` 2025:KER:23123 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** - 2 - ``` 2JAINAMMA PHILIPOSE AGED 56 YEARS W/O K C PHILIPOSE, KAPPAMAMOOTTIL HOUSE, ZIONPURAM, MALLAPPALLY WEST P O , MALLAPPALLY VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689585 ``` ``` 3PHILIPOSE AGED 58 YEARS S/O CHACKO SCARIA, KAPPAMAMOOTTIL HOUSE, ZIONPURAM, MALLAPPALLY WEST P O , MALLAPPALLY VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 689585 ``` - **`4 SKARIAH`** ``` AGED 68 YEARS S/O CHACKO SKARIAH , KAPPAMAMOOTTIL HOUSE, ZIONPURAM, MALLAPPALLY WEST P O , MALLAPPALLY VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT ., PIN - 689585 ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.E.C.BINEESH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JOSE ANTONY FOR R2 AND R3 ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ``` ``` 14.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` Crl.M.C.No.7300 of 2024 ``` ``` 2025:KER:23123 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** - 3 - ## **`C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.`** ``` ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C.No.7300 of 2024 ------------------------------------ Dated, this the 14[th] day of March, 2025 ``` ## **`ORDER`** ``` A five Judges Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kulwinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another [(2007) 4 CTC 769], framed broad guidelines as regards quashment of the criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code in respect of offences which are not compoundable in terms of Section 320 of the Code. One among the guidelines was that the offences against human body, other than murder and culpable homicide, may be permitted to be compounded, when the court is in a position to record a finding that the settlement between the parties is voluntary and fair. These guidelines were quoted with approval by a three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court inGian Singh v. State of Punjab and another [(2012) 10 SCC 303]. Similarly in Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab [(2014) 6 SCC 466], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has gone to ``` ``` Crl.M.C.No.7300 of 2024 ``` ``` 2025:KER:23123 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** - 4 - ``` the extent of sanctioning invocation of the inherent power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the F.I.R. in a crime alleging offence under Section 307, which is a heinous and serious offence. A practical approach is seen adopted by the Hon'ble Supreme in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [(2008) 4 SCC 582] as regards quashment in respect of offences like 379, 406, 409, 418, etc., the relevant findings of which are extracted here below: ``` ``` “6.We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.” ``` ``` 2.In the facts at hand, petitioners are accused nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.1058/2019 of Keezhvaipur Police Station, ``` ``` Crl.M.C.No.7300 of 2024 ``` ``` 2025:KER:23123 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** - 5 - ``` Pathanamthitta, now pending as C.C.No.1702/2019 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thiruvalla. As per the final report, the offences alleged are under Sections 294(b), 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners seek quashment of entire proceedings in the above Calendar Case, on the strength of the settlement arrived at by and between the parties. ``` ``` 3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent/defacto complainant and 3 respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records. ``` ``` 4.When this Crl.M.C was moved, this Court directed to record the statement of the defacto complainant. The said direction was complied and the statements of the defacto complainant and 3[rd] respondent (injured) were handed over. On perusal of the same, it is clear that respondent nos.2 and 3 (injured) are no longer interested to continue with the case and that they have no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. That apart, it is ``` ``` Crl.M.C.No.7300 of 2024 ``` ``` 2025:KER:23123 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** - 6 - ``` noticed that, along with this Crl.M.C, an affidavit has been sworn to by the defacto complainant (2[nd] respondent herein) as Annexure-A3, wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes have been settled and that she has no surviving grievance against the petitioners. The defacto complainant has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. This Court also perused affidavits sworn to by respondents 3 and 4 (CW2 and CW3), wherein they would vouch the factum of settlement. The affidavits are sworn to on their own volition, without any compulsion, whatsoever. This Court, is therefore, convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine and bonafide. Learned Counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3 would also endorse that the quashment sought for can be allowed. ``` ``` 5.In the light of the above referred facts, this Court is of the opinion that the necessary parameters, as culled out inNarinder Singh (supra),Madan Mohan Abbot(supra) and Gian Singh (Supra), are fully satisfied. This Court is convinced that further proceedings against the petitioners ``` ``` Crl.M.C.No.7300 of 2024 ``` ``` 2025:KER:23123 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** - 7 - ``` will be a futile exercise, inasmuch as the disputes have already been settled. There is little possibility of any conviction in the crime. Dehors the settlement arrived at by and between the parties, if they are compelled to face the criminal proceedings, the same, in the estimation of this Court, will amount to abuse of process of Court. The quashment sought for would secure the ends of justice. This Court also notice that offences under Sections 323 and 341 are compoundable, which is all the more a reason to accept the compromise between the parties. ``` ``` In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-A2 ``` ``` Final Report in Crime no.1058/2019 and all further proceedings in C.C.No.1702/2019 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thiruvalla, are hereby quashed. ``` ## **`Sd/-`** ## **`C. JAYACHANDRAN`** ## **`JUDGE`** ``` SKP ``` ``` Crl.M.C.No.7300 of 2024 ``` ``` 2025:KER:23123 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** - 8 - ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7300/2024`** ## **`PETITIONERS’ ANNEXURES:`** ``` ANNEXURE A1TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1058 OF 2019 OF KEEZHVAYPUR POLICE STATION DATED 4- 9-2019 ``` ``` ANNEXURE A2TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 1058 OF 2019 DATED 20-9-2019 PENDING AS CC NO. 1702 OF 2019 ON THE FILE OF JFCM, THIRUVALLA ``` ``` ANNEXURE A3THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 17-8-2024 ``` ``` ANNEXURE A4THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 17-8-2024 ``` ``` ANNEXURE A5THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT ON 17-8-2024 ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL`** ## **`TRUE COPY`** ``` P.A. TO JUDGE ```