High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2013-02-26FIR and all further proceedings quashed; inhere...

Sunil Kumar @ Suni and Sunil Kumar @ Suni v. State of Kerala and others

Case / Petition Number:CRL.M.C.599/13

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. T. Ravikumar
Judgment Date: 2013-02-26
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is allowed. Annexure-1 FIR in crime No.1233/2012 of Aranmula Police Station and all further proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.
Final Disposition: FIR and all further proceedings quashed; inherent power under 482 Cr.P.C invoked in the interest of justice; case terminated

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sunil Kumar @ Suni S/o Vijayann, Valiyakalayil House, Thara Bhagom Kannamukku Naranganam Village, Pathanamthitta Dist.
Sunil Kumar @ Suni S/o Gopalakrishnan, Kizhakeveetil, Kannamukku Naranganam Village, Pathanamthitta Dist.

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Raveendran Pillai S/O Krishna Pillai, Madathinath Veetil, Madathumpady Naranganam Village, Pathanamthitta Dist.
Sub Inspector of Police, Aranmula

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri V. Philip Mathew

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri E. Radhakrishnan
• Sri Rajesh Vijayan

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a criminal miscellaneous petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by two accused (petitioners) in Crime No. 1233 of 2012 of Aranmula Police Station, Pathanamthitta. The petition seeks to quash the FIR and subsequent proceedings, contending that the dispute arising from an alleged theft of Rs. 1,74,000 by the petitioners from the defacto complainant’s hotel room is an entirely personal matter and the parties have settled the issues between themselves. The defacto complainant has filed an affidavit stating that the lis has been compromised and that he does not wish to prosecute, and the offences are non-compoundable under section 320 IPC. The court notes the Supreme Court’s decisions in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, which underscore that the High Court may exercise its inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C in the interest of justice to terminate proceedings that are unnecessary. After hearing submissions, the judge concludes that continued proceedings would not serve any fruitful purpose given the settlement, and that quashing the FIR and all further proceedings is appropriate. The order quashes Annexure-1 FIR and terminates the case.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 380 IPCSection 461 IPCSection 34 IPCSection 320 Cr.P.C.Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Inherent power of High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR in the interest of justice
Duty of the High Court to prevent continuation of criminal proceedings that become absolutely unnecessary (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab)
Use of decisions in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana as authority to exercise inherent power under 482 Cr.P.C.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argued that the dispute arose from a personal transaction, the complainant has compromised the matter, and the offences alleged are non-compoundable under section 320 IPC. Relying on B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, they contended that the High Court has inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR and final report to prevent injustice and frivolous continuation of proceedings, especially where there is a settlement between the parties. They submitted that continuing the case would serve no public interest and that quashing would advance the ends of justice and avoid harassment.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents acknowledged the compromise and the defacto complainant's avowed unwillingness to prosecute, but noted that the offences are non-compoundable under section 320 IPC. They argued that, despite the compromise, the court must consider public interest and the statutory limitations on quashing for non-compoundable offences. They submitted that legitimate proceedings should not be terminated where a non-compoundable offence is involved without due consideration of the facts.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana	2003 (2) KLT 1062 (SC)	Positive	Cited to support quashing of FIRs and proceedings under the inherent power of the High Court under 482 Cr.P.C. in the interest of justice.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)	Positive	Cited for the proposition that the High Court has a duty to prevent continuation of criminal proceedings that are absolutely unnecessary, in the interest of justice.

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 Sunil Kumar @ Suni and Sunil Kumar @ Suni 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 C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/7TH PHALGUNA 1934 Crl.MC.No. 599 of 2013 () ------------------------CRIME NO. 1233/2012 OF ARANMULA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTITTA PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 AND 2: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. SUNIL KUMAR @ SUNI AGED 25 YEARS S/O.VIJAYAN, VALIYAKALAYIL HOUSE, THARA BHAGAM KANNAMUKKU, NARANGANAM VILLAGE PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. SUNIL KUMAR @ SUNI, AGED 27 YEARS S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN, KIZHAKEVEETIL, KANNAMUKKU NARANGANAM VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE : -------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. RAVEENDRAN PILLAI S/O.KRISHNA PILLAI, MADATHINATHU VEETIL, MADATHUMPADY NARANGANAM VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689645. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ARANMULA-689533. R2 BY ADV. SRI.E.RADHAKRISHNAN R1,2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.M.C.599/13 ## PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE 1:CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1233/12 OF ARANMULA POLICE STATION. - ANNEXURE 2:CERTIFIED COPY OF THE REPORT DT.3.11.2012 FILED BY THE POLICE INSPECTOR, KOZHENCHERRY BEFORE JFMC-I, PATHANAMTHITTA STATING DELETION OF SEC.329 IPC FROM THE OFFENCE. - ANNEXURE 3: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE REPORT DT.3.11.2012 FILED BY THE POLICE INSPECTOR, KOZHENCHERRY BEFORE JFMC-I, PATHANAMTHITTA STATING IMPLEADMENT OF PETITIONERS AS ACCUSED. - ANNEXURE 4:COPY OF THE REMAND APPLICATION DT.3.11.2012 FILED BY THE POLICE INSPECTOR, KOZHENCHERRY BEFORE JFMC-I, PATHANAMTHITTA. - ANNEXURE 5:COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.12.12 IN CMP.NO.1217/2012. - ANNEXURE 6:COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT.6.11.2012 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND THE PETITIONERS BEFORE JFMC-I, PATHANAMTHITTA. - ANNEXURE 7:COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 6.11.12 IN CRL.M.P.NO.8199/12 PASSED BY JFMC-I, PATHANAMTHITTA. - ANNEXURE 8:COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT.6.11.2012 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE JFMC-I, PATHANAMTHITTA FOR RELEASING CURRENCY NOTES. - ANNEXURE 9:COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DT.16.1.2013 SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL //TRUE COPY// ## P.A.TO JUDGE ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **========================== CRL.M.C. No.599 OF 2013 ==========================** Dated this the 26[th] day of February, 2013 ## **ORDER** Petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in crime No.1233 of 2012 of Aranmula Police Station alleging commission of offences under sections 380 and 461 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Second respondent herein is the defacto complainant. Gist of the allegations against the petitioners is that on 2.11.2012 at about 11 a.m, they along with the second respondent consumed alcohol in a hotel room. The second respondent became sottish and soon slipped into sleep and then, the petitioners took away an amount of Rs.1,74,000/kept in the almirah of the hotel room belonging to the second respondent. At the instance of the second respondent, Annexure-1 FIR was registered and Annexure-2 is the final report laid in that crime. 2. The second respondent has now filed an affidavit to the **Crl.M.C.599/13** 2 effect that the lis that constrained him to lodge a complaint that ultimately resulted in the registration of the aforesaid crime has been settled and compromised between himself and the petitioners. It is also stated that in the circumstances, he did not wish to prosecute the petitioners. Evidently, the offences alleged against the petitioners are not compoundable in terms of the provisions under section 320 Cr.P.C. At the same time, it is evident that the defacto complainant/second respondent, whose money was taken away by the petitioners in the manner as aforesaid, has compromised and settled the case with the petitioners. The nature of the case involved is purely personal. In such circumstances, in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **B.S. Joshi v. State of Hariyana [2003 (2) KLT 1062 (SC)],** the inclusion of non-compoundable offence/offences in the FIR and the provisions under section 320 Cr.P.C cannot limit or affect the exercise of the inherent power under section 482, Cr.P.C. In the decision in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab ( 2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC),** the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is the duty of the High Court to prevent continuation of criminal proceedings that became absolutely unnecessary, in the interest of **Crl.M.C.599/13** 3 justice. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and also the learned Public Prosecutor. It is evident from the submissions made by the learned counsel for the second respondent and perusing the affidavit filed by the second respondent that the disputes that ultimately culminated in the registration of the aforesaid crime has been settled and compromised between the second respondent and the petitioners. In such circumstances, no fruitful purpose would be served by allowing continuation of the proceedings based on Annexure-1 FIR. In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **B.S. Joshi v. State of Hariyana [2003 (2) KLT 1062 (SC)],** it is permissible for quashing the FIR and final report in appropriate cases by invoking the inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C in the interest of justice. In view of the discussions, I am of the view that this is a fit case wherein this Court should invoke the inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C to terminate all further proceedings based on Annexure-1 FIR. **Crl.M.C.599/13** 4 In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure-1 FIR in crime No.1233 of 2012 of Aranmula Police Station and all further proceedings against the petitioners pursuant thereto are hereby quashed. **C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)** **spc/** **Crl.M.C.599/13** 5 ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **JUDGMENT September, 2010** **Crl.M.C.599/13** 6