High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2013-09-10Quashed; FIR No. 419/2008, the final report in ...

Suresh Kumar @ Suresh v. State of Kerala & Gireesh

Case / Petition Number:CRL.MC No. 3932 of 2013

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: V. K. Mohanan
Judgment Date: 2013-09-10
Court Decision / Holding: Crl.M.C. allowed; quashing Annexure I FIR and Annexure 2 final report in Crime No. 419/2008 of Kilikolloor Police Station and all further proceedings pending against him pursuant to the same, including S.C. No. 454/2013 on the file of the court of Addl. Districts and Sessions Judge (Adhoc-II), Kollam.
Final Disposition: Quashed; FIR No. 419/2008, the final report in Crime No. 419/2008, and all further proceedings including SC 454/2013 are quashed against the applicant.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Suresh Kumar @ Suresh, aged 32 years, S/O. Pankajakshan Pillai, Akash Bhavan, Chendapoor, Thrikkovilvattom Village, Kollam District

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Kilikolloor Police Station through Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala - 682 031
Gireesh, S/O. Kuttan Pillai, Thekkathil Veedu, NADARCONAM CHERRY, Thrikovillattom Village, Kollam District - 691 331

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri S. Abhilash
• Sri Pratheesh P.

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. S. Hyma
• Sri K. Siju

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the first accused, Suresh Kumar, challenging FIR No. 419/2008 of Kilikolloor Police Station, final report dated 30.11.2008, and the proceedings in S.C. No. 454/2013. The prosecution alleges offences under IPC sections 294(b), 324 and 308 read with 34. The petitioner contends that the entire dispute with the de facto complainant has been settled and that the co-accused have been acquitted per Annexure 4, making continuing proceedings a waste of judicial time. He relies on the Supreme Court’s Gian Singh decision to invoke the High Court’s inherent power under section 482 to secure ends of justice and prevent abuse of process, especially where the dispute is civil in flavour and resolved by compromise. The judge notes that several witnesses turned hostile (PW2–PW5) and that the remaining evidence led to acquittals of others, and, in light of the settlement, considers quashing appropriate. Following Gian Singh, the court exercises its wide inherent power to grant the relief sought, quashing the FIR, final report, and all further proceedings including SC 454/2013 in the present case.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of Cr.P.C.Section 320 of Cr.P.C.IPC 294(b)IPC 324IPC 308 read with IPC 34

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ends of justice
Prevent abuse of the process of any Court
Inherent power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings
Compromise between offender and victim can render conviction unlikely and continuation oppressive in cases with civil flavour

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the entire dispute with the de facto complainant has been settled; Co-accused have been acquitted; continuing the case would be a sheer waste of judicial time; hence, under section 482 Cr.P.C., the FIR No. 419/2008 and the final report should be quashed along with all further proceedings, including SC 454/2013. He relies on the Supreme Court’s decision in Gian Singh to justify quashing where the offence has a civil flavour, and a complete settlement exists between the offender and the victim.

Contentions of Respondents

The judgment record reflects the prosecution case alleging offences under IPC sections 294(b), 324, 308 with 34; the court notes that key witnesses turned hostile and that co-accused were acquitted; however, explicit counter-arguments from the respondents are not detailed in the order. The court considers the settlement and the possibility of conviction to be remote in light of the circumstances and the settled dispute, in line with Gian Singh’s principles.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012(4) KLT 108(SC)	Positive	Court relies on Gian Singh to exercise inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings in disputes settled by compromise, especially where the offence has a civil/private flavour and continuing would cause oppression.

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 Suresh Kumar @ Suresh v. State of Kerala & Gireesh 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 V.K.MOHANAN** **TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/19TH BHADRA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3932 of 2013** ## **---------------------------** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC NO. 1195/2010 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, KOLLAM DATED 27-04-2013** **....** **CRIME NO. 419/2009 OF KILIKOLLOOR POLICE STATION , KOLLAM** **.....** ## **PETITIONER(S)/1ST ACCUSED:** **--------------------------------------------------** **SURESH KUMAR @ SURESH,AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.PANKAJAKSHAN PILLAI, AKASH BHAVAN, CHENDAPOOR, THRIKKOVILVATTOM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.S.ABHILASH SRI.PRATHEESH.P.** ## **RESPONDENTS/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE:** **----------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA. REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KILIKOLLOOR POLICE STATION THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA - 682 031.** **2. GIREESH, S/O.KUTTAN PILLAI, THEKKATHIL VEEDU, , AGED 33 YEARS, NADARCONAM CHERRY, THRIKKOVILVATTOM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 331.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.SIJU** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-09-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Kss** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3932 of 2013** ## **------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES: --------------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE-1: THE COPY OF FIR WITH FIS IN CRIME NO.419/2008 OF KILIKOLLOOR POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE-2: THE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.419/2008 DATED 30.11.2008. ANNEXURE-3: THE COPY OF WOUND CERTIFICATE OF THE DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT/2ND RESPONDENT ISSUED FROM THE DISTRICT HOSPITAL, KOLLAM DATED 18.8.2008.** **ANNEXURE-4: THE COPY OF JUDGEMENT IN S.C.NO.1195/2010 ON THE FILE OF ADDL.DISTRICTS & SESSIONS JUDGE (ADHOC-II), KOLLAM DATED 27.4.2013. ANNEXURE-5: THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT REGARDING COMPROMISE ON 7.9.2013. RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: ----------------------------------------------N I L** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.S.TO JUDGE** **Kss** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **----------------------------------------** ## **CRL.M.C.No. 3932 of 2013** **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 10[th] day of September, 2013 ## **O R D E R** The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.419 of 2008 of the Kilikolloor Police Station and according to him, the entire dispute after the incident in the above case has been settled with the de facto complainant and besides the above, according to him, though the other accused faced the trial, they are acquitted as per Annexure 4 judgment. So, according to the petitioner, in the above circumstances, no purpose will be served even if he is willing to face the trial. Hence, the present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure I FIR and Annexure 2 final report in Crime No.419/2008 of Kilikolloor Police Station and all further proceedings pending against him pursuant to the same in S.C.No.454/2013 on the file of the court of Additional Districts and Sessions Judge (Adhoc-II), Kollam. Crl.M.C.No. 3932 Of 2013 **==> picture [21 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** 2. The prosecution case is that due to previous enmity on 18.8.2008 at 7.15 a.m. accused abused CW1 and the first accused inflicted injury upon his head with a sword and A2 attempted to commit his murder by inflicting injuries. The place of occurrence is on the eastern side of the public road near Kalakulam temple. The attempt of the accused was to commit his muder. Accused were allegedly acting in prosecution of their common intention CW1 gave a statement before the Police and on the basis of that CW9 registered Crime No.419/2008 conducted the investigation and laid the charge before the court. Thus, according to the prosecution, the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 324 and 308 read with Section 34 I.P.C. 3. Now, the case of the petitioner is that as I indicated earlier, after the incident, the entire dispute is settled with the second respondent, who is the de facto complainant and he had sworn into Crl.M.C.No. 3932 Of 2013 **==> picture [21 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** Annexure 5 affidavit. In the light of the submission made by counsel for the petitioner, I have also perused Annexue 4 judgment and in paragraph 6 of the same, the learned Sessions Judge has found that Pws.2 to 5, who are the occurrence witnesses, did not support the prosecution case and they turned hostile and thus, the remaining witnesses were given up by the prosecution and consequently, those accused are acquitted. 4. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, according to me, particularly in view of the settlement arrived between the petitioner and the de facto complainant, it is only just and proper to allow this Crl.M.C., otherwise, no purpose will be served except the sheer waste of judicial time. In this juncture, it is relevant to note the v. decision of the Honourable Apex Court reported in **Gian Singh State of Punjab** [2012(4) KLT 108(SC)]. In Gian Singh's case, the Supreme Court has held as follows:- Crl.M.C.No. 3932 Of 2013 ## :-4-: _“57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under S.320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz;(i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R. may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed.._ ## It is further held as follows:- “...... _... But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial,mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim........”_ Thus, according to me, following the decision cited supra, this Crl.M.C.can be allowed granting the relief as sought for. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed quashing Annexure I Crl.M.C.No. 3932 Of 2013 **==> picture [21 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** FIR and Annexure 2 final report in Crime No.419/2008 of Kilikolloor Police Station and all further proceedings pending against him pursuant to the same including S.C.No.454/2013 on the file of the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge (Adhoc-II), Kollam. **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** MBS/ Crl.M.C.No. 3932 Of 2013 :-6-: