Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed

Shynu Jyothi and others v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C.No.590 of 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Bechu Kurian Thomas
Judgment Date
2023-04-12
Court Decision / Holding
All proceedings against the petitioners in S.C.No.865/2022 are quashed; Crl.M.C is allowed as prayed.
Final Disposition
Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Shynu Jyothi
  • Sumith K.S
  • Ajith
  • Arun Sharma
  • Jyothi Kumar
  • Akash
  • Akshay Mohan
  • Syam Kumar
  • Vishnu
  • Rajesh
  • Nikhil
  • Rahul
  • Vishnu (another)
  • Arun (another)
  • Nithin Raj @ Aniyan Kuttan
  • Sunil Kumar G @ Mavel Sunil
  • Abhilash
  • Sarath
  • Anish
  • Rakesh
  • Sooraj Raj

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor
  • The Station House Officer, Adoor Police Station
  • Noushad (defacto complainant)
  • Ashik (injured witness)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Respondents

  • • P. V. Dileep (for State of Kerala)
  • • K. V. Anil Kumar (for Noushad)
  • • K. V. Anil Kumar (for Ashik)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by twenty-one accused, namely Shynu Jyothi, Sumith K.S., Ajith, Arun Sharma, Jyothi Kumar, Akash, Akshay Mohan, Syam Kumar, Vishnu, Rajesh, Nikhil, Rahul, Vishnu (another), Arun (another), Nithin Raj @ Aniyan Kuttan, Sunil Kumar G @ Maveli Sunil, Abhilash, Sarath, Anish, Rakesh and Sooraj Raj, challenging the continued proceedings in S.C.No.865/2022 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta, arising from Crime No.25/2019 of Adoor Police Station. The respondents include the State of Kerala, represented by the Public Prosecutor, the Station House Officer (SHO), Adoor Police Station, and the defacto complainant (Noushad) along with an injured witness (Ashik). The petition contends that the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties and that continuing the prosecution would serve no public interest. Annexures 2 and 3 comprise affidavits from the defacto complainant and the other respondent, affirming the settlement. The learned Public Prosecutor verified the affidavits and stated they were genuine. The court relied on Supreme Court precedents that permit quashing in cases of amicable settlement where no public interest is involved (Gian Singh; Narinder Singh; Yogendra Yadav). Having found the settlement genuine and no public interest in continuation, the court quashes all proceedings against the petitioners in S.C.No.865/2022 and allows the Crl.M.C.

Provisions of Law Cited

Cr.P.C. Section 482IPC Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 324, 308, 326, 427 read with Section 149 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 10 SCC 303
  • Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another (2014) 6 SCC 466
  • Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another (2014) 9 SCC 653
  • Amicable settlement in criminal matters can justify quashing where no public interest is involved (principle from the above cases)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that the dispute has been settled amicably between the accused and the defacto complainant and witnesses. They urge that continuation of proceedings would serve no public purpose given the settlement and the nature of the offences involved. Citing the settled position in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another, Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another, and Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another, they seek exercise of the High Court’s inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR/S.C. proceedings in the interest of justice, particularly when there is no public interest at stake. They rely on affidavits (Annexures 2 and 3) verifying the settlement as genuine.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that the affidavits presented by the petitioners are to be examined by the court and that the validity of the settlement should be weighed against public interest. The Public Prosecutor states that the affidavits are genuine and that there is no public interest in continuing the prosecution where a settlement exists. They emphasize that the legitimate interests of victims and witnesses must be protected and that quashing should not undermine the due process or public policy, though the affidavits support the settlement. The court is invited to examine the settlement and determine whether continuing the proceedings would be futile and contrary to justice.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another2012 (10) SCC 303PositiveCited to support that amicable settlement can justify quashing criminal proceedings where no public interest is involved.
Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another2014 (6) SCC 466PositiveCourt reiterates the principle enabling quashing where settlement exists without public interest concerns.
Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another2014 (9) SCC 653PositiveSupports the approach of considering settlement as a basis for quashing in appropriate cases.

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 Shynu Jyothi 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 MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS** **WEDNESDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 590 OF 2023** **IN CRIME NO.25/2019 OF ADOOR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT NOW PENDING BEFORE THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT,PATHANAMTHITTA AS S.C. NO.865/2022** **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 21:** **1 SHYNU JYOTHI , AGED 28 YEARS, S/O JYOTHEENDRAN, KIKKAL THEKKETH VEEDU, NEAR MANNADI TEMPLE, MANNADI MURI, MANNADI.P.O, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN – 691530 2 SUMITH K.S, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O SUDHAKARAN PILLAI, SUMITH VIHAR VEEDU, KADAMPANAD VILLAGE, NEAR MANNADI TEMPLE, MANNADI MURI, MANNADI.P.O, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN – 691530 3 AJITH, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O LAVAN, POOVAKKULATHU VEEDU, KADAMPANAD VILLAGE, NEAR MANNADI TEMPLE, MANNADI MURI, MANNADI.P.O, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN – 691530 4 ARUN SHARMA, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O THANKAPPAN POTTI, SANTHAVILASAM VEEDU, KARUVATTA MURI, PERINGANAD VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN – 691551 5 JYOTHI KUMAR, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O THANKAPPAN,** **Crl.M.C.No.590 OF 2023** **2** ||**SARIKA VEEDU,**| |---|---| ||**AMMAKANDAKKARA, AMMAKANDAKKARA MURI,**| ||**PERINGANAD VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK,**| ||**PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN – 691551**| |**6**|**AKASH,**| ||**AGED 21 YEARS,**| ||**S/O CHANDRAMOHANAN NAIR,**| ||**THYPPASSERIL VEEDU,**| ||**NILAMEL, MANNADI MURI,**| ||**KADAMPANAD VILLAGE, MANNADI.P.O,**| ||**ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.,**| ||**PIN – 691551**| |**7**|**AKSHAY MOHAN,**| ||**AGED 26 YEARS,**| ||**S/O CHANDRAMOHANAN NAIR,**| ||**THYPPASSERIL VEEDU,**| ||**NILAMEL, MANNADI MURI,**| ||**KADAMPANAD VILLAGE, MANNADI.P.O,**| ||**ADOOR TALUK,**| ||**PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN – 691551**| |**8**|**SYAM KUMAR,**| ||**AGED 29 YEARS,**| ||**S/O KUNJAYYAN,**| ||**SALINI VEEDU, MANNADI NADUVILE MURI,**| ||**KADAMPANAD VILLAGE, MANNADI.P.O, ADOOR TALUK,**| ||**PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN – 691551**| |**9**|**VISHNU,**| ||**AGED 22 YEARS,**| ||**S/O SURESHKUMAR,**| ||**CHETTAVELIL VEEDU, MANNADI NADUVILE MURI,**| ||**KADAMPANAD VILLAGE, MANNADI.P.O, ADOOR TALUK,**| ||**PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN – 691551**| |**10**|**RAJESH,**| ||**AGED 39 YEARS,**| ||**S/O CHANDRAN PILLAI,**| ||**KALEELUVILA KIZHAKKATHIL VEEDU,**| ||**NILAKKAL, IVERKALA THEKKU MURI,**| ||**KADAMPANAD VILLAGE,**| ||**ADOOR TALUK,**| **Crl.M.C.No.590 OF 2023** **3** ||**PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.,**| |---|---| ||**PIN – 690540**| |**11**|**NIKHIL,**| ||**AGED 29 YEARS,**| ||**S/O RAJAN,**| ||**RAHUL BHAVANAM VEEDU,**| ||**PAZHAKULAM MURI, PALLIKKAL VILLAGE,**| ||**ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.,**| ||**PIN - 691554**| |**12**|**RAHUL,**| ||**AGED 28 YEARS,**| ||**S/O DAMODARAN,**| ||**THAYYIL VEEDU,**| ||**ALUMMOODU, PAZHAKULAM MURI,**| ||**PALLIKKAL VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK,**| ||**PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN – 691554**| |**13**|**VISHNU,**| ||**AGED 22 YEARS**| ||**S/O BIJU,**| ||**SINHYA BHAVANAM,**| ||**NEAR PUNTHALA VEETTIL TEMPLE,**| ||**PAZHAKULAM MURI, PALLIKKAL VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK,**| ||**PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN – 691554**| |**14**|**ARUN,**| ||**AGED 25 YEARS,**| ||**S/O GIREESH,**| ||**GIRIJA BHAVANAM, NACHANGA MALA, PAZHAKULAM MURI,**| ||**PALLIKKAL VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK,**| ||**PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN – 691554**| |**15**|**NITHIN RAJ @ ANIYAN KUTTAN,**| ||**AGED 22 YEARS,**| ||**S/O BIJU,**| ||**KUTTIVELI THEKKETHIL VEEDU,**| ||**PAYYANALLOOR,**| ||**PAZHAKULAM MURI,**| ||**PALLIKKAL VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK,**| ||**PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN – 691554**| |**16**|**SUNIL KUMAR. G @ MAVELI SUNIL,**| ||**AGED 22 YEARS,**| **Crl.M.C.No.590 OF 2023** **4** ||**S/O NJANAKKANNAN NAIR,**| |---|---| ||**RAJANI MANDIRAM, PANNIVIZHA OTTIMUKKU,**| ||**PANNIVIZHA MURI, ADOOR VILLAGE,**| ||**ADOOR TALUK,**| ||**PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN – 691523**| |**17**|**ABHILASH,**| ||**AGED 22 YEARS,**| ||**S/O SASIDHARAN PILLAI,**| ||**KAIMAVILAYIL VEEDU,**| ||**ILAMPALLIL MURI, PALLIKKAL VILLAGE,**| ||**ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.,**| ||**PIN – 691554**| |**18**|**SARATH,**| ||**AGED 34 YEARS,**| ||**S/O CHANDRAN NAIR,**| ||**SARATH BHAVANAM VEEDU,**| ||**PERINGANAD VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK,**| ||**PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN – 691551**| |**19**|**ANISH**| ||**AGED 27 YEARS**| ||**S/O AYYAPPAN,**| ||**ANEESH BHAVANAM VEEDU,**| ||**NEAR PUNTHALA VEETTIL TEMPLE,**| ||**AMMAKANDAKARA MURI, PERINGANAD VILLAGE,**| ||**ADOOR TALUK,**| ||**PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN – 691551**| |**20**|**RAKESH,**| ||**AGED 29 YEARS,**| ||**S/O RAMACHANDRAN,**| ||**CHAMATHADATHIL THEKKETHIL VEEDU,**| ||**CHENAMPALLI, KARUVATTA MURI, PERINGANAD VILLAGE,**| ||**ADOOR TALUK,**| ||**PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN – 691551**| |**21**|**SOORAJ RAJ,**| ||**AGED 28 YEARS,**| ||**S/O SOMARAJAN,**| ||**SOORYA BHAVANAM, KUNNATHOOR VILLAGE,**| ||**IVERKALA PADINJARU, VADAKKEKKARA MURI, IVERKALA,**| ||**KUNNATHOOR TALUK,**| **Crl.M.C.No.590 OF 2023** **5** **KOLLAM DISTRICT., PIN - 690540 BY ADV P.V.DILEEP** ## **RESPONDENT/STATE & COMPLAINANT:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM., PIN – 682031** **2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER ADOOR POLICE STATION, ADOOR P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN – 691523 3 NOUSHAD AGED 32 YEARS S/O. JALALUDEEN, NOUSHAD MANZIL, PUTHUSSERIBHAGOM MURI, VYALABHAGOM, ERATHU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN – 691551 4 ASHIK AGED 25 YEARS S/O SAINUDEEN, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, ENATHU MURI, ENATHU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN – 691551** **BY ADV K.V.ANIL KUMAR** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **PP SMT.SEETHA S** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.04.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **==> picture [453 x 40] intentionally omitted <==** **Crl.M.C.No.590 OF 2023** **6** ## **ORDER** ## **Dated this the 12[th] day of April, 2023** Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash all proceedings against them. 2. Petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 21 in S.C.No.865/2022 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta, arising out of Crime No.25 of 2019 of Adoor Police Station, registered for the offences under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 324, 308, 326, 427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Respondents 3 and 4 are the defacto complainant and the injured witnesses. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents, apart from the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the matter has been settled and hence the proceedings **Crl.M.C.No.590 OF 2023** **7** against the petitioners ought to be quashed. It was also submitted that, considering the nature of offences alleged, no purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings. 5. In **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another** [(2012) 10 SCC 303], the Apex Court has held 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. This view was reiterated in **Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another** [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and **Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another** [(2014) 9 SCC 653]. 6. I have perused Annexures 2 and 3 affidavits filed by respondents 3 and 4. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that upon verification, it is understood that the affidavits are genuine, and the defacto complainant and the other deponent stand by the contents thereof. I am satisfied that the matter has been settled and no public **Crl.M.C.No.590 OF 2023** **8** interest is involved in this case. There is no impediment for granting the prayer for quashing. The continuance of the proceedings will only be an exercise in futility. 7. Accordingly, all proceedings against the petitioners in S.C.No.865/2022 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta, are quashed. This Crl.M.C is allowed as above. **Sd/-** **`BECHU KURIAN THOMAS Judge`** ``` NR/12/04/2023 ``` **Crl.M.C.No.590 OF 2023** **9** ## **APPENDIX** |**PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES**|| |---|---| |**Annexure-1**|**THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT/CHARGE**| ||**SHEET IN CRIME NO. 25/ 2019 OF ADOOR POLICE**| ||**STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.**| |**Annexure-2**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 3RD**| ||**RESPONDENT**| |**Annexure-3**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 4TH**| ||**RESPONDENT**|