Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed the proceedings in CC 1230/2014; entire...

Sridhar and Sreekumar v. State of Kerala and Sreedevi and Nana Gubbala

Case / Petition Number:CRL.M.C No. 7346/2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
Judgment Date
2023-10-26
Court Decision / Holding
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. All further proceedings in CC 1230/2014 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (Eco Offences), Ernakulam arising from Crime No.1206/2014 are quashed.
Final Disposition
Quashed the proceedings in CC 1230/2014; entire case closed with quashing of further proceedings.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Sridhar
  • Sreekumar

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Cochin
  • Sreedevi
  • Nana Gubala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • P. Martin Jose
  • • V. A. Johnson
  • • P. Prijith
  • • Thomas P. Kuruvilla
  • • R. Githesh
  • • Harikrishnan S.

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Thomas P.V.
  • • Tony George Thomas(K/818/2020)

Case Synopsis & Summary

The Kerala High Court, in a criminal miscellaneous case under Section 482 CrPC, quashed the proceedings in CC 1230/2014 arising from Crime No.1206/2014 of ET South Police Station, Ernakulam. Petitioners Sridhar and Sreekumar, accused nos. 1 and 2, challenged the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Eco Offences), Ernakulam. The prosecution alleged offences under Sections 341, 323, and 324 read with Section 34 IPC, arising from a dispute among siblings after their mother’s death. The parties resolved their differences and the petitioners moved to quash the prosecution, supported by affidavits from the victims indicating no objection. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement, though he conceded that the matter was settled. The court invoked the doctrine from State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) (5) SCC 688, along with Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, to hold that CrPC Section 482 quashing is permissible for non-compoundable offences with a predominantly civil character when the entire dispute is settled, provided the offences are private in nature and do not cause grave public harm. The court emphasized considering antecedents and conduct, and determined the dispute is private in nature and the settlement genuine. Consequently, the Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed and all further proceedings in CC 1230/2014 are quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 482Indian Penal Code, Sections 341, 323, 324 read with Section 34

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Power under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to quash non‑compoundable offences in private disputes when the entire dispute is settled and the civil character predominates; not applicable to heinous or serious offences (e.g., murder, rape, dacoity); not to be exercised for offences under special statutes or involving public servants; offences like Section 307 IPC or Arms Act are to be treated as crimes against society and cannot be quashed solely on settlements; the High Court may examine the nature of the injury and other factors if the charge relates to an offence like Section 307 IPC after evidence is collected; antecedents and conduct of accused prior to settlement should be considered.
  • parties":{"respondents":["State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Cochin","Sreedevi","Nana Gubala"],"applicants":["Sridhar","Sreekumar"]},
  • lawyers":{"applicants":["P. Martin Jose","V. A. Johnson","P. Prijith","Thomas P. Kuruvilla","R. Githesh","Harikrishnan S."],"respondents":["Thomas P.V.","Tony George Thomas(K/818/2020)"]},
  • arguments":{"applicants":"The petitioners submitted that the disputes between the parties have been settled amicably; affidavit evidence from the victims states there is no objection to quashing the prosecution; the civil character of the dispute and the private nature of the offences permit exercise of CrPC 482 powers to quash in the interest of peace and to prevent harassment. They urged the Court to rely on the Laxmi Narayan doctrine and the related cases (Gian Singh and Narinder Singh) to allow quashing upon settlement of the entire dispute and without compromising victims’ interests. The petitioners argued that the offences are non‑compoundable but private disputes of a family context can be resolved without continuation of criminal proceedings. ","respondents":"The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about quashing solely on settlement, citing potential public interest concerns and the need to ensure that the settlement reflects free consent and is genuine. However, he conceded that the dispute is settled between the parties. The respondent urged judicial caution, noting that some offences may have broader social impact and that the court must ensure that quashing would not undermine the interest of justice or victims’ rights and that the evidence supports qualification for quashing under CrPC 482."},
  • court_decision":"This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. All further proceedings in CC 1230/2014 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (Eco Offences), Ernakulam arising from Crime No.1206/2014 are quashed.","cited_cases":[{"citated_case_name":"State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others","citation_number":"2019 (5) SCC 688","treatment":"Positive","explanation":"Established the framework for using CrPC 482 to quash non‑compoundable offences where the dispute is private and settled, with civil character predominating.”"},{"citated_case_name":"Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another","citation_number":"2012 (10) SCC 303","treatment":"Positive","explanation":"Cited for principles on quashing in private disputes and selection of cases under CrPC 482."},{"citated_case_name":"Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another","citation_number":"2014 (6) SCC 466","treatment":"Positive","explanation":"Cited to harmonize interpretation of Narinder Singh with Laxmi Narayan regarding quashing in private disputes."}],"bench":"Single Judge","case_disposition":"Quashed","official_neutral_citation":null} }|} )} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|} }|}
  • benchาจะ":"Single Judge"
  • case_disposition":"Quashed
  • neutral_citation_volume_null":"null"} } } .} }}} } }}} } } } } } } } } }

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that the dispute between the parties has been settled amicably; affidavits sworn by the victims indicate no objection to quashing; the civil character of the dispute and the private nature of the offence permit exercise of the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings to prevent harassment and preserve peace. They relied on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) and the accompanying discussion in Gian Singh and Narinder Singh to argue that when the entire dispute is resolved, quashing is warranted even for non‑compoundable offences if public interest is not affected.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement but conceded that the dispute is settled. He urged caution and emphasized that the court must ensure that the settlement is genuine, and consider the nature of offences and potential impact on society before exercising the CrPC 482 power.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others2019 (5) SCC 688PositiveProvides the controlling guidance for quashing non‑compoundable offences in private, civil-type disputes when a full settlement has occurred.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another2012 (10) SCC 303PositiveCited to corroborate the approach on non‑compoundable offences and settlement-based quashing.
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another2014 (6) SCC 466PositiveUsed to harmonize with Laxmi Narayan in applying the quashing doctrine.

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 Sridhar and Sreekumar v. State of Kerala and Sreedevi and Nana Gubbala 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 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1945 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 7346 OF 2023 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC 1230/2014 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF ``` ## **`JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (E&O),ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2:`** ``` 1SRIDHAR, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANASWAMI, RAVIPURAM, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, PERUMANOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682015 2SREEKUMAR, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANASWAMI, RAVIPURAM, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, PERUMANOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682015 BY ADVS. P.MARTIN JOSE V.A.JOHNSON P.PRIJITH THOMAS P.KURUVILLA R.GITHESH HARIKRISHNAN S. ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA , COCHIN-, PIN - 682031 2SREEDEVI AGED 47 YEARS, D/O. NARAYANASWAMI, SIVAPRASADAM HOUSE, ALLAPPAT EXTENSION ROAD, RAVIPURAM, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, PERUMANOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT NOW RESIDING AT SAI APARTMENT, RAM NAGAR COLONY VENKITTARAO NAGAR, ALWAR,SECUNDRABAD, PIN - 682015 3NANA GUBBALA AGED 49 YEARS, S/O SATHYA NARAYANA MOORTHY SIVAPRASADAM HOUSE, ALLAPPAT EXTENSION ROAD, RAVIPURAM, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, PERUMANOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT NOW RESIDING AT SAI APARTMENT, RAM NAGAR COLONY VENKITTARAO NAGAR, ALWAR, SECUNDRABAD, PIN – 682015 ``` Crl.M.C No.7346/2023 ..2.. ``` BY ADVS. THOMAS P.V TONY GEORGE THOMAS(K/818/2020) ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` Crl.M.C No.7346/2023 ..3.. **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.7346 of 2023 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 26[th] day of October, 2023** ## **O R D E R** This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for the sake of brevity). 2. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C. No.1230/2014 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (Eco Offences), Ernakulam arising from Crime No.1206/2014 of E.T. South Police Station, Ernakulam alleging offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that the petitioners and the 3[rd] respondent are siblings. The mother of the petitioners and the 2[nd] respondent died and disputes arose between the petitioners and the 2[nd] respondent with respect to the Crl.M.C No.7346/2023 ..4.. property and two civil cases were filed before the Sub Court, Ernakulam. Few days after the death of the mother, while the petitioners were residing in the house, which was inherited from the mother, respondents 3 and 4 reached in the house and quarreled with the petitioners and allegedly got injured and there by committed the aforesaid offences. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties have settled their dispute and do not wish to pursue the prosecution proceedings. The counsel relies on the affidavit filed by the victims in support of their contention. The counsel appearing for the victims also submitted that the matter is settled and the victims have no objection in quashing the prosecution. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, has expressed reservations about quashing the proceedings solely on the basis of the settlement. But the Public Prosecutor conceded that the matter is settled between the parties. Crl.M.C No.7346/2023 ..5.. 6. This Court has considered the submission of the petitioners, victims and the Public Prosecutor and has also gone through the records including the affidavits filed by the victims. 7. In _**State of Madhya Pradesh v Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019 (5) SCC 688)**_ **,** three judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized the situation in which non compoundable offences can be quashed invoking the powers under Section 482 of the Code. The apex court in _**Laxmi Narayan**_ 's case (supra) also relied on the law laid down in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another (2012 (10) SCC 303)** and **Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another (2014 (6) SCC 466)** . The apex Court in paragraph 13 of the _**Laxmi Narayan**_ 's case discussed the law in detail and the same is extracted hereunder: _“13. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to herein above, it is observed and held as under:_ Crl.M.C No.7346/2023 ..6.. _i) that the power conferred under S.482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non - compoundable offences under S.320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;_ _ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;_ _iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender;_ _iv) offences under S.307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under S.307 IPC and / or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under S.482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision_ Crl.M.C No.7346/2023 ..7.. _merely because there is a mention of S.307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of S.307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under S.307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital / delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed / charge is framed and / or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated herein above;_ _v) while exercising the power under S.482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of noncompoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement / compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the_ Crl.M.C No.7346/2023 ..8.. _complainant to enter into a compromise etc.”_ 8. Keeping in mind the above dictum laid down by the apex court, this court perused the facts in this case and also perused the documents produced by the parties. After going through the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the dispute is private in nature and the settlement can be accepted. Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous case is allowed. All further proceedings in C.C. No.1230/2014 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (Eco Offences), Ernakulam arising from Crime No.1206/2014 of E.T. South Police Station, Ernakulam are quashed. Sd/- ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** ded Crl.M.C No.7346/2023 ..9.. ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7346/2023`** |`PETITIONER`|`ANNEXURES`| |---|---| |`Annexure 1`|`CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN`| ||`CRIME NO.1206 /2014 OF E.T.SOUTH POLICE`| ||`STATION, ERNAKULAM`| |`Annexure 2`|`AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE 2ND`| ||`RESPONDENT`| |`Annexure 3`|`AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE 2ND`| ||`RESPONDENT 3RD RESPONDENT`|