High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-11-24Petition allowed; proceedings in S.C. No.607 of...

Sujith E s/o Janardhanan v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No. 6967 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date: 2016-11-24
Court Decision / Holding: Petition allowed; quash the proceedings against the petitioner. Annexure-1 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner now pending as S.C. No.607 of 2016 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Payyannur are quashed.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; proceedings in S.C. No.607 of 2016 quashed; final report quashed against the petitioner.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sujith E s/o Janardhanan

Respondents

State of Kerala through Station House Officer, Talipparamba Police Station, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam-682031
Rameshan C
Rakesh
Vyshakh

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Smt. P. Sheeba

Counsels for Respondents

• K. S. Praveen (Adv.)
• Amjad Ali (Public Prosecutor)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash S.C. No.607/2016 pending before the Assistant Sessions Court, Payyannur. The petitioner, Sujith E s/o Janardhanan, aged 29, is accused along with six others of forming an unlawful assembly on 14 February 2013 at around 10 p.m. and restraining and assaulting respondents 2–4, resulting in injuries. After investigation, the final report was filed; the case against the petitioner is separate and pending as S.C. No.607/2016. The petitioner prays for quashing under Section 482 on grounds that the dispute with the victims has been amicably settled and the matter is private in nature, thus continuing the proceedings would not serve ends of justice and would constitute abuse of process. The respondents and the state oppose mainly on grounds that quashing should not be allowed in a case with serious offences and that a settlement would not suffice to terminate a criminal trial. The Public Prosecutor also expresses reservations. The court cites Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 to emphasize that, where settlement exists, the High Court may quash to secure ends of justice and prevent abuse of process. On balancing, the court finds the offence not grave, the dispute is personal, and quashing would serve ends of justice. Therefore, the petition is allowed and the final report and proceedings are quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 506(i), 427, 308 read with Section 149 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ends of justice
Prevention of abuse of the process of law
Amicable settlement between victim and wrongdoer as a factor in quashing proceeding

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the dispute with the complainants is a private, personal matter that has since been amicably settled. He argues that continuing criminal proceedings would undermine the ends of justice and amount to abuse of process in light of the settlement. The remedy under Section 482 CrPC is appropriate to prevent harassment and to promote reconciliation where the dispute is not grave and the settlement is genuine; thus quashing would be in the interest of justice and public harmony. The petitioner emphasizes there are no other ongoing cases against him.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents contend that the offences are serious in nature and that a settlement cannot by itself justify quashing of ongoing criminal proceedings. They note the public interest in accountability and submit that Section 482 power is extraordinary and should not be invoked merely on settlement unless ends of justice and prevention of abuse of process requirements are clearly satisfied. The State, through the Public Prosecutor, also urges caution and reserves express reservations about quashing in such cases.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 (10) SCC 303	Positive	Cited to support the principle that quashing criminal proceedings may be appropriate where settlement exists if it serves the ends of justice and is not an abuse of process.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	2014 (6) SCC 466	Positive	Represents the guideline that the High Court may quash proceedings where settlement between victim and wrongdoer serves ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process.

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 Sujith E s/o Janardhanan 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.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/3RD AGRAHAYANA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 6967 of 2016 ()** **--------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER IN SC 607/2016 of ASST. SESSIONS COURT, PAYYANNUR CRIME NO. 174/2013 OF THALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION , KANNUR** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED** **-----------------------------------** **SUJITH E S/O. JANARDHANAN AGED 29, PATTUVUM AMSOM AREYIL, TALIPARAMBA TALUK KANNUR DT.** ## **BY ADV. SMT.P.SHEEBA** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT & INJURED:** **------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, TALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031** ## **2. RAMESHAN.C** **S/O. ANANDAN, AGED 47 YEARS, CHEMMANCHERY HOUSE, PATTUVAM AMSOM, MULLOOL DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DT.670321** ## **3. RAKESH** **S/O. RAJA N, AGED 27 YEARS, KANDOTH HOUSE, MADHAVA NAGAR PATTUVUM AMSOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DT.670321** **4. VYSHAKH S/O. RAMESHAN AGED 20 YEARS, CHEMMANCHERY HOUSE, PATTUVAM AMSOM, MULLOOL DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DT. 670321** **R2-4 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.PRAVEEN R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-112016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **Crl.MC.No. 6967 of 2016 ()** **---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURS** |**-----------------------**|| |---|---| |**ANNEXURE 1:**|**COPYOF THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE POLICE IN**| ||**CR.NO.174/2013 OF TALIPARAM,BA POLICE STATION (IN**| ||**S.C.N.607/2016 OF ASST. SESSIONS COURT PAYYANNUR)**| |**ANNEXURE 2:**|**COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT**| |**ANNEXURE 3:**|**COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT**| |**ANNEXURE 4:**|**COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT**| |**RESPONDENT(S)'**|**ANNEXURES**| |**-----------------------**|| ## **NIL** **/TRUE COPY/** **VPS PS TO JUDGE** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.6967 of 2016** ## **----------------------------------------Dated this the 24[th] day of November, 2016** ## **O R D E R** - 1.This petition is filed under S.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 petitioner herein is the accused in S.C. No.607 of 2016 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Payyannur. He stands indicted under sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 506(i), 427, 308 read with Section 149 of the IPC. - 3.The prosecution allegation is that on 14.2.2013 at about 10.00 p.m., the petitioner along with six others formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, wrongfully restrained respondents 2 to 4 and thereafter assaulted them with weapons Crl.M.C.6967/2016 2 causing injuries. - 4.After investigation, final report was laid before the jurisdictional court. The case against the petitioner was separately committed and is now pending as S.C.No.607 of 2016 on the files of the said court. - 5.Heard the submissions advanced. - 6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Crl.M.C.No. 6988 of 2016 has been preferred by the 3[rd] accused to quash the proceedings pending against him as S.C.No.736 of 2015 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Court, Payyannur. Crl.M.C.No.7866 of 2016 has been preferred by the accused Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 in the aforesaid Crime to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.335 of 2014 on the file of the said Court. According to the learned counsel, the matters have been amicably resolved and hence the continuance of proceedings will serve no purpose. - 7.The learned counsel appearing for the party respondents Crl.M.C.6967/2016 3 submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. Attention of this Court is invited to the affidavits filed by them to buttress their 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. - 8.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 against the petitioner. - 9.I have considered the submissions . ## 10.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 Crl.M.C.6967/2016 4 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.”_ 11.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: ## _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_ Crl.M.C.6967/2016 5 _the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives._ _xxxxxxx_ _xxxxxxx_ 12.The offence committed by the petitioner 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. 13.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-1 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against Crl.M.C.6967/2016 6 the petitioner now pending as S.C. No.607 of 2016 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Payyannur are quashed. **Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE** vps