High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed: FIR, final report, and all further pro...

Sunu Thomas v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:CRL.MC NO. 399 OF 2025
Neutral Citation:2025:KER:25906

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C. Jayachandran
Judgment Date
2025-03-24
Court Decision / Holding
In the circumstances, this Crl.MC is allowed. Annexure-A1 (FIR), Annexure-A2 (Final Report), and all further proceedings in CC No.8/2024 are quashed.
Final Disposition
Quashed: FIR, final report, and all further proceedings in CC No.8/2024 are quashed; Annexures A1–A4 quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Sunu Thomas

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
  • The Station House Officer, Muvattupuzha Police Station
  • Sudha Varghese
  • Baby Varghese @ Kunjumon Varghese

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • BIJU ABRAHAM

Counsels for Respondents

  • • SEENA.C -PP
  • • Shabeer Ali Mohamed

Case Synopsis & Summary

Sunu Thomas, the sole accused in Crime No.1491/2023 of Muvattupuzha Police Station, is before the Kerala High Court, Krishnankur? No—Ernakulam, via CRL.MC No.399 of 2025, seeking quashment of proceedings in CC No.8/2024 (Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Muvattupuzha) under Section 482 CrPC. The offences alleged are under IPC sections 323 (causing hurt) and 294(b) (obscene act). The petitioner relies on a settlement between the parties: he, the accused, and the defacto complainant Sudha Varghese and the injured Baby Varghese. Statements of the defacto complainant and the injured were recorded; affidavits sworn by them (Annexures-A3 and A4) affirm that the disputes are settled amicably, they have no subsisting grievances, and they have no objection to quashing the criminal proceedings. The court noted that the settlement is genuine and bonafide, endorsed by respondents 3 and 4, and that proceeding with the criminal case would amount to abuse of process and would be contrary to ends of justice. Relying on Kulwinder Singh (2007) 4 CTC 769, Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303, Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Madan Mohan Abbot (2008) 4 SCC 582, the court held that the parameters for quashing are satisfied, especially since Section 323 is compoundable and the settlement is favorable to all. The petition is allowed, and FIR, final report, and all further proceedings are quashed; Annexures A1–A4 are quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of CrPCSection 320 of CrPCSection 323 IPCSection 294(b) IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Ends of justice
  • Abuse of process of Court
  • Inherent power of High Courts to quash under Section 482 CrPC
  • Common-sense approach in criminal litigation
  • Settlement between the parties being genuine and bonafide
  • Compromise in criminal proceedings for offences that are compoundable under Section 320 CrPC

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends for quashment of the entire proceedings under the inherent powers of this Court (Section 482 CrPC), arguing that the settlement between the accused and the defacto complainant/injured is genuine, voluntary, and fair. The affidavits (Annexures A3, A4) confirm no subsisting grievance and no objection to quashing; continuing proceedings would be an abuse of process and would thwart ends of justice. Since the dispute is largely personal and the offences (notably Section 323 IPC) are susceptive to compounding, quashing is appropriate in light of settled positions in Kulwinder Singh, Gian Singh, Narinder Singh and Madan Mohan Abbot.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents (defacto complainant and injured) support quashment, stating the settlement is genuine and voluntary; they do not wish to pursue the case; the affidavits assert no grievance or objection to quashing; the State’s counsel and the Public Prosecutor acknowledge the need to avoid abuse of process and to give effect to the settlement in the interest of ends of justice.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Kulwinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another[(2007) 4 CTC 769]PositiveEstablished guidelines for quashing under 482 CrPC in cases where disputes are settled and offences are not necessarily non-compoundable; adopted as foundational framework.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another[(2012) 10 SCC 303]PositiveSupreme Court endorsed the guidelines for quashing based on settlements; cited with approval.
Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab[(2014) 6 SCC 466]PositiveTreats settlement and ends of justice as a guiding principle for quashing; cited as a parameter.
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab[(2008) 4 SCC 582]PositiveAdvocates a practical approach to quashing in offences where a settlement is possible, including non-traditional or ‘hard’ offences; supports the current court’s reasoning.

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 Sunu Thomas 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.

``` CRL.MC NO. 399 OF 2025 ``` > `[2025:KER:25906]` ``` 1 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 24[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1947 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 399 OF 2025 ``` ``` CRIME NO.1491/2023 OF Muvattupuzha Police Station, Ernakulam ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 20.11.2024 IN CC NO.8 OF 2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I MUVATTUPUZHA ``` ## `PETITIONER/ACCUSED:` ``` SUNU THOMAS AGED 50 YEARS W/O. FR. THOMAS CHAKIRIYIL, CHAKIRIYIL HOUSE, NIRAPPU BHAGAM, PIRAVOM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686664 ``` ``` BY ADV BIJU ABRAHAM ``` ## `RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:` ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 ``` - `2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 686661` ``` 3SUDHA VARGHESE AGED 55 YEARS ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 399 OF 2025 ``` ``` 2 ``` > `[2025:KER:25906]` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` W/O. KUNJUMON VARGHESE, AGED 55 YEARS, PUTHEN VEEDU, ALENCHERY, YEROOR P.O., ANCHAL, KOLLAM, PIN - 691312 ``` ``` 4BABY VARGHESE @ KUNJUMON VARGHESE AGED 59 YEARS S/O. Y. BABY, PUTHEN VEEDU, ALENCHERY, YEROOR P.O., ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691312 ``` ``` BY ADV Shabeer Ali Mohamed ``` ``` SEENA.C -PP ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 399 OF 2025 ``` ``` 3 ``` > `[2025:KER:25906]` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`C. JAYACHANDRAN, J. -----------------------------------CRL.MC NO. 399 OF 2025`** ``` ------------------------------------ Dated, this the 24[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 in Gian 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], ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 399 OF 20254 ``` > `[2025:KER:25906]` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` the Hon'ble Supreme Court has gone to 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 herebelow: ``` ``` “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 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 399 OF 2025 ``` > `[2025:KER:25906]` ``` 5 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` law.” ``` ``` 2.In the facts at hand, petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.1491/2023 of Muvattupuzha Police Station, Ernakulam, now pending as C.C.No.8/2024 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Muvattupuzha. As per the final report the offences alleged are under Sections 323 and 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner seeks 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 petitioner, learned counsel for the defacto complainant/respondent no.3 and respondent no.4 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/3[rd] respondent and the injured/4[th] ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 399 OF 2025 ``` ``` 6 ``` > `[2025:KER:25906]` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` respondent recorded over the phone, were handed over. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the issues between the petitioner, the defacto complainant and the injured are settled amicably and that they have no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. That apart, it is noticed that, along with this Crl.M.C, affidavits have been sworn to by the defacto complainants as Annexures-A3 and A4, wherein they would unequivocally state that the disputes have been settled and that they do not want to proceed further with the case against the petitioner. They would also swear that they have no subsisting grievance against the petitioner and that they have no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. 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 respondents 3 and 4 would also endorse that the ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 399 OF 2025 ``` > `[2025:KER:25906]` ``` 7 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 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 in Narinder Singh (supra),Madan Mohan Abbot(supra) and Gian Singh (Supra), are fully satisfied. This Court is convinced that further proceedings against the petitioner 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 offence under Section 323 is compoundable, which is all the more a reason to accept the compromise between the parties. ``` ``` In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 399 OF 20258 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** > `[2025:KER:25906]` ``` Annexure-A1 F.I.R., Annexure-A2 Final Report in Crime No.1491/2023 and all further proceedings in C.C.No.8/2024 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Muvattupuzha, are hereby quashed. ``` ``` Sd/- ``` ## **`C. JAYACHANDRAN`** ``` JUDGE ``` ``` ska ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 399 OF 2025 ``` ``` 9 ``` > `[2025:KER:25906]` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 399/2025` ## `PETITIONER ANNEXURES` |`Annexure A1`|`THE CERTIFIED COPY OF FIRST INFORMATION`| |---|---| ||`REPORT IN CRIME NO. 1491 OF 2023 OF`| ||`MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION DATED 09-09-2023`| |`Annexure A2`|`THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED`| ||`IN C. C. NO. 8/2024 OF HON’BLE JUDICIAL`| ||`FIRST-CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT I, MUVATTUPUZHA`| ||`DATED 20-11-2023`| |`Annexure A3`|`THE AFFIDAVIT SWEARED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT`| ||`DATED 08-01-2025 AFFIRMING THE ABOVE FACT`| |`Annexure A4`|`THE AFFIDAVIT SWEARED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT`| ||`DATED 08-01-2025 AFFIRMING THE ABOVE FACT`|