High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-12-13Quashed

Syam Sivarajan Pillai v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:CRL.M.C NO.8585 OF 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Ziyad Rahman A.A.
Judgment Date: 2022-12-13
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is allowed. Annexure-A2 Final Report in Crime No. 10/2019 of Anchal Police Station and all further proceedings in CP No. 61/2020 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-1, Punalur, against the petitioners, are quashed.
Final Disposition: Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Syam Sivarajan Pillai (Accused Nos.1)
Bipin Krishna U (Accused No.2)
Shybin B (Accused No.3)
Nithin K Mohan (Accused No.4)
Kamal Nadh V.G (Accused No.5)
Ratheesh R (Accused No.6)
Aneesh M.P (Accused No.7)
Anu B (Accused No.10)
Biju Kumar M (Accused No.12)
Vishnu R (Accused No.14)

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Station House Officer, Anchal Police Station, Anchal, Kollam District
Shameem S/O Shahul Hameed, Sareena Manzil, Karukon e P.O., Kollam District
Shijin Shaji S/O Shaji Varghese, Palli Padinjattathil, Channapetta P.O., Kollam District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv Suvin.R.Menon

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor S. Biju
• Adv M P Prashnath - PP

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court of Kerala, in a criminal miscellaneous case, exercises its inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash continuing proceedings where the dispute is private and has been settled. The petitioners—accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12 and 14—are arrayed in Crime No. 10/2019 of Anchal Police Station, with offences under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 308 and 109 read with 149 IPC. The respondents include the State, the local SHO, and two private complainants who faced the alleged offences. The petition contends that a settlement has been reached between the parties, supported by affidavits (Annexures A4 and A5) from the injured, who state they have no subsisting grievance and have no objection to quashing the proceedings. The State-respondent confirms the settlement’s veracity after verification by the SHO. The court notes that the dispute is essentially private in nature, and continued proceedings would unlikely yield a successful outcome given the lack of serious injuries and the relatively minor gravity of many offences, though one offence (308 IPC) existed. Citing Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another (2012(4) KLT 108), the court holds that it may exercise its 482 Cr.P.C powers where no public interest would be served by continuation. Consequently, the petition is allowed, and Annexure A2 and all further proceedings in CP 61/2020 are quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 143 IPCSection 144 IPCSection 147 IPCSection 148 IPCSection 341 IPCSection 323 IPCSection 324 IPCSection 308 IPCSection 109 read with Section 149 IPCSection 149 IPCSection 482 Cr.P.C

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash criminal proceedings
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another (2012(4) KLT 108) – authority for quashing where private dispute settled and no subsisting grievance

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that the dispute with the injured parties is private and, having arrived at a settlement, the injured have sworn affidavits (Annexures A4, A5) stating no subsisting grievance and no objection to quashing the proceedings. The SHO verified the settlement. Since the offences are not of a grave nature and the continuation of proceedings would serve no productive purpose, especially in light of the private nature of the dispute and the lack of serious injuries (though 308 IPC is present), it would be just to invoke the court's inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash.

Contentions of Respondents

The State and complainants emphasized that the offences include 308 IPC and the gravity of offences cannot be ignored; however, the public interest and victims' rights must also be weighed. The verification of the settlement by the SHO and affidavits by the injured indicate no ongoing grievance. The respondents urged cautious handling, recognizing the need to protect public interest even while acknowledging the settlement.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another	2012(4) KLT 108	Positive	Cited as precedent endorsing exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash criminal proceedings in private disputes where there is settlement or no public interest in continuation.

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 Syam Sivarajan Pillai 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 ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. TUESDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA,** **1944** **CRL.MC NO. 8585 OF 2022** **PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1,2,3,4,5,6,7,10,12,14:** 1 SYAM SIVARAJAN PILLAI AGED 30 YEARS S/O SIVARAJAN PILLAI, SYAM VILASOM, KADAVARAM, KARUKONE P O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691306 2 BIPIN KRISHNA U AGED 33 YEARS S/O UNNKRISHNAN NAIR, BIPIN VILASOM, KURUVANTHERI, KARUKONE P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691306 3 SHYBIN B AGED 27 YEARS S/O BABU, CHARUVILAPUTHEN VEEDU, PUNCHAKONAM, KARUKONE P O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691306 4 NITHIN K MOHAN AGED 34 YEARS S/O MOHANAN, NAYANA BHAVAN, KUTTINADU, KARUKONE P O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691306 5 KAMAL NADH V.G AGED 32 YEARS S/O VISWANADHA PILLAI, KIZHAKKEVEETTIL, PULLANJIYODU, KARUKONE P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691306 6 RATHEESH R AGED 40 YEARS S/O RAVI, VARAYADI PUTHEN VEEDU, 2 ## Crl.M.C No.8585 of 2022 PUNCHAKONAM,KARUKONE P O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691306 7 ANEESH M.P AGED 38 YEARS S/O MADHAVAN PILLAI, PADINJATTINKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, KURAVENTHERY, KARUKONE P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691306 8 ANU B AGED 24 YEARS S/O BIJU, THOTTINKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, VETTITHIRIPPU, KARUKONE P O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691306 9 BIJU KUMAR M AGED 46 YEARS NELLIKUNNATHU VEEDU, KURAVANTHERI, KARUKONE P O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691306 10 VISHNU R AGED 34 YEARS S/O RADHAKRISHNAN, ADHI BHAVAN, KURAVANTHERY, MOONGODU MURI, KARUKONE P O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691306 11 SIBU R AGED 42 YEARS S/O RAVEENDRAN, SREEBHAVAN, KUTTINADU, KARUKONE P O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691306 BY ADV SUVIN.R.MENON 3 Crl.M.C No.8585 of 2022 ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANTS:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER ANCHAL POLICE STATION, MARKET JUNCTION, OPPOSITE ANCHAL PRIVATE BUS STAND, ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691306 3 SHAMEEM S/O SHAHUL HAMEED, SAREENA MANZIL, KARUKONE.P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691306 4 SHIJIN SHAJI S/O SHAJI VARGHESE, PALLI PADINJATTATHIL, CHANNAPETTA.P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691311 BY ADVS. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR S.BIJU (KIZHAKKANELA) ADV M P PRASHNATH - PP **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** 4 Crl.M.C No.8585 of 2022 ## **O R D E R** The petitioners are the accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12 and 14 respectively in C.P No. 61/2020 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Punalur. The aforesaid case arises from Crime No. 10/2019 of Anchal Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 308 and 109 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. Annexure-A1 is the FIR and Annexure-A2 is the Final Report submitted by the Police. The respondents 3 and 4 are the victims of the crime. This Crl.MC is filed for quashing all further proceedings pursuant thereto. 2. Heard Sri.Suvin.R.Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.M.P.Prashanth, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and Sri.S.Biju (Kizhakkanela), the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 4. 3. The prayer for quashing the above proceedings is sought for by the petitioners on the ground that, the dispute between the parties has been settled and to substantiate the 5 Crl.M.C No.8585 of 2022 same, the injured persons have sworn Annexures-A4 and A5 affidavits respectively. The aforesaid affidavits indicate that, the matter has been settled and the injured persons have no subsisting grievance against the petitioners herein. They also conveyed that they have no objection in quashing the proceedings against the petitioners herein. The learned counsel for the respondents Nos.3 and 4/injured persons also confirmed the same. The learned Public Prosecutor upon instructions submitted that the veracity of the settlement was verified by the Station House officer concerned and before the SHO also, the injured persons have reiterated that, they do not have any objection in quashing the proceedings as they have no subsisting grievance against the petitioners herein. 4. Going through the materials available on record, it is discernible that, the dispute is basically private in nature and on account of settlement arrived at between the parties, no purpose would be served if the proceedings against the petitioners herein were allowed to continue. In such circumstances, the chances of a successful prosecution are very bleak. Therefore, I am of the view that going by the decision in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and** 6 Crl.M.C No.8585 of 2022 **Another [2012(4) KLT 108],** this is a fit case in which the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked. 5. It is true that, one of the offences is under Section 308 of Indian Penal Code. However, it is discernible from the records that, no serious injuries were sustained by the victims. Apart from the above, the learned Public Prosecutor upon instructions, pointed out that, accused Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12 and 14 are involved in some other cases. The details of the crimes were also placed before me. However, on perusal of the same, it is evident that the offences alleged therein are not very serious in nature. It is also evident that, the said offences were registered in connection with the strikes and protests made by the accused persons therein. In such circumstances, taking note of the gravity of the offences alleged in this case and also the cases in which they were previously involved, I deem it appropriate to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings. Accordingly, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-A2 Final Report in Crime No.10/2019 of Anchal Police Station and all 7 Crl.M.C No.8585 of 2022 further proceedings in C.P No.61/2020 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-1, Punalur as against the petitioners are hereby quashed. Sd/- **ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A JUDGE** rpk 8 Crl.M.C No.8585 of 2022 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 8585/2022** ## PETITIONER ANNEXURES |Annexure A1|CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION| |---|---| ||REPORT DATED 03.01.2019 IN CRIME NO 10 OF| ||2019 OF ANCHAL POLICE STATION ALONG WITH THE| ||FIRST INFORMATION STATEMENT OF THE 3RD| ||RESPONDENT DATED 11.06.2022| |Annexure A2|CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED| ||20.01.2020 IN CRIME NO. 10 OF 2019 SUBMITTED| ||BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST-CLASS MAGISTRATE| ||COURT -I, PUNALUR| |Annexure A3|A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.10.2022 OF| ||THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST| ||CLASS - I, PUNALUR IN C.P NO. 61 OF 2020| |Annexure A4|ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 28.10.2022| ||SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT, THE DE-FACTO| ||COMPLAINANT| |Annexure A5|ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 28.10.2022| ||SWORN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT|