High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2012-06-13Disposed of; quashing of proceedings against th...

Thundipparambath Gireesh v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C. No. 1736 of 2012

Neutral Citation:/null

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A.M. Shaffique
Thomas P. Joseph
Judgment Date: 2012-06-13
Court Decision / Holding: All proceedings against the petitioner in LP.13 of 2000 in CP No.52 of 2000, arising from Crime No.25 of 1996, Vatakara Police Station, are quashed.
Final Disposition: Disposed of; quashing of proceedings against the petitioner.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Thundipparambath Gireesh

Respondents

The State of Kerala
Malayil Balakrishnan
Kuniyil Narayanan
N.K. Govindan
Kuniyil Kunhiraman
Vembroli Balan

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K.P. Sudheer

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor Lisha M.G.
• Santheep Ankarath
• Jai George

Case Synopsis & Summary

Thundipparambath Gireesh, the fourth accused in Crime No. 25 of 1996 of the Vatakara Police Station, moves the Kerala High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash LP No. 13 of 2000 in CP No. 52 of 2000, which arose from the same crime. The prosecution had charged him and others with offences under IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 427 and 307 read with section 149 IPC, and section 2(1) of the Kerala Public Meeting Disturbance Prevention Act. Annexures A1–A3 (FIR, final report, and memorandum of evidence) form the core of the record; Annexures A4–A5 show the other accused being discharged. The de facto complainants (respondents 2–6) filed affidavits (Annexures 6–10) stating that the matter has been settled and they do not intend to prosecute. Although some offences are not compoundable, the petitioner relies on Supreme Court precedents in Joshi v. State of Haryana, Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, Nikhil Merchant v. CBI, and Manoj Sharma v. State, arguing that quashing is permissible under circumstances where settlement and non-prosecution are evident and continued prosecution would cause hardship. The court notes these affidavits and the settled position of the parties, and concludes that continuing the prosecution serves no purpose. Accordingly, all proceedings against the petitioner are quashed and the Crl.M.C. is disposed of.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 427 and 307 read with Section 149 IPCSection 2(1) of the Kerala Public Meeting Disturbance Prevention Act

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that Section 482 Cr.P.C. authorizes the High Court to quash proceedings when continuation would be an abuse of process and when there is a settlement and no intention to prosecute by the de facto complainants. He relies on the FIR (Annexure A1), the charge sheet (Annexure A2), and the memorandum of evidence (Annexure A3) and notes that the other accused were discharged (Annexures 4–5). Despite offences being non-compoundable in some cases, the cited Supreme Court decisions (Joshi v. State of Haryana; Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab; Nikhil Merchant v. CBI; Manoj Sharma v. State) support quashing where settlement exists and continued prosecution would cause hardship. On these facts, the court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash all proceedings, thereby relieving the petitioner from harassment and saving resources.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents’ arguments are not expressly detailed in the order. It is recognized that affidavits (Annexures 6–10) indicate settlement and a lack of intent to prosecute, which the court has considered. In general, the respondents would contend that, though the public interest requires accountability, quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised cautiously, particularly given the offences involved (IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 427, 307 read with 149 IPC and Section 2(1) of the KPDM Act) and the fact that some offences are not compoundable. The respondents would urge a careful balancing of public interest and orderly criminal process, ensuring that any quashing does not set an improper precedent.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Joshi v. State of Haryana	2003(2)KLT 1062(SC)	Positive	Cited to support quashing under settled circumstances when there is an accord or no-prosecution, aligning with the court’s reasoning to quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab	AIR 2008 SC 1969	Positive	Cited for the principle that quashing is permissible under appropriate circumstances, reinforcing the court’s approach in this case.
Nikhil Merchant v. C.B.I	2008(3)KLT 769	Positive	Used to underpin the discretion to quash when there is a settlement and non-prosecution, conserving judicial and police resources.
Manoj Sharma v. State	2008(4)KLT 417	Positive	Lends support to quashing where the prosecution is deemed unwarranted by the circumstances, consistent with the present order.

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 Thundipparambath Gireesh 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 A.M.SHAFFIQUE** ## **WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/23RD JYAISHTA 1934** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1736 of 2012 ()** **-------------------------CRIME NO. 25/1996 OF VATAKARA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT** **----------------** ## **PETITIONER / 4TH ACCUSED :** **-------------------------------------------** **THUNDIPARAMBATH GIREESH, S/O.KANARAN, AGED 39 YEARS, THUNDIPARAMBATH VEEDU, PONMERI PARAMBIL P.O- 673 546, VATAKARA KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER** ## **RESPONDENTS / STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANTS :** **--------------------------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. THE STATE OF KERALA** **REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VATAKARA POLICE STATION, VATAKARA - 673 101 KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** ## **2. MALAYIL BALAKRISHNAN** **S/O.KANARAN, AGED 57 YEARS, MALAYIL HOUSE, PONMERI - PARAMBIL P.O - 673 546, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** ## **3. KUNIYIL NARAYANAN** **S/O.BHASKARAN NAIR, AGED 41 YEARS, KUNIYIL HOUSE PONMERI - PARAMBIL P.O - 673 546, VATAKARA KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** ## **4. N.K.GOVINDAN** - **S/O.RAMANKUTTY, AGED 48 YEARS, KURUNGOTT HOUSE PONMERI - PARAMBIL P.O- 673 546, VATAKARA KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** ## **5. KUNIYIL KUNHIRAMAN** - **S/O.KANNAN NAIR, AGED 51 YEARS,** **KUNIYIL HOUSE, PONMERI - PARAMBIL P.O- 673 546, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **...2/-** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1736 of 2012 () -2-** **6. VEMBROLI BALAN, S/O.KELAPPAN, VEMBROLI HOUSE, PONMERI - PARAMBIL P.O - 673 546, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LISHA M.G. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH BY ADV. SRI. JAI GEORGE** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Mn** **...3/-** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1736 of 2012 ()** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :** **ANNEXURE A1. CERTIFIED COPY OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORT DATED 16.1.1996 IN CRIME NO. 25/1996 OF VATAKARA POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE A2. CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT DATED 30.04.1999 IN CRIME NO. 25/1996 OF VATAKARA POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE A3. CERTIFIED COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF EVIDENCE DATED 30.4.1999 IN CRIME NO. 25/1996 OF VATAKARA POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE A4. CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 20.2.2011 IN SESSIONS CASE NO.342/1999 PASSED BY ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, KOZHIKODE.** **ANNEXURE A5. TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 20.2.2011 IN SESSIONS CASE NO.372/2000 PASSES BY ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, KOZHIKODE. ANNEXURE A6. AFFIDAVIT DATED 6.5.2012 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A7. AFFIDAVIT DATED 6.5.2012 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A8. AFFIDAVIT DATED 6.5.2012 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A9. AFFIDAVIT DATED 6.5.2012 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A10. AFFIDAVIT DATED 6.5.2012 OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **Mn** ## **A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * * *** Crl.M.C.No. 1736 of 2012 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 13[th] day of June 2012 ## **O R D E R** This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing all proceedings against the petitioner in L.P.No.13 of 2000 in C.P.No.52 of 2000 pending before the JFCM Court-Vatakara arising from Crime No.25 of 1996 of Vatakara Police Station. 2. It is alleged that the petitioner and other accused were involved in commission of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 427 and 307 read with section 149 of I.P.C. and section 2(1) of the Kerala Public Meeting Disturbance Prevention Act. Annexure A1 is the FIR, Annexure A2 is the Charge sheet and Annexure A3 the memorandum of evidence. The other accused were discharged as per orders Annexure 4 and 5. 3. The de-facto complainants /respondents 2 to 6 have filed affidavits as Annexures 6 to 10 stating that the matter has been settled between the parties and they do not intend to prosecute the case against the petitioner. Crl.M.C..No.1736/12 2 4. Though certain offences are not compoundable, in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in **Joshi v. State of Haryana [2003(2)KLT 1062(SC)]Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [AIR 2008 (S.C.) 1969], Nikhil Merchant v. C.B.I [2008(3) KLT 769]** and **Manoj Sharma v. State [2008 (4) KLT 417]** , the prosecution against the accused can be quashed under certain circumstances. 5. As matters stand settled as is evident from the affidavits and especially in view of the fact that the de facto complainants do not intend to proceed with the case, there is no point in prosecuting the case any further and it will lead to unnecessary hardship to the de facto complainant. Hence the principles adopted in the above judgments can be applied to the facts of this case also. 6. In the above circumstances, all proceedings against the petitioner in L.P.No.13 of 2000 in C.P.No.52 of 2000 pending before the JFCM Court- Vatakara arising from Crime No.25 of 1996 of Vatakara Police Station are quashed. Crl.M.C is disposed of as above. (sd/-) ## **(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)** jsr Crl.M.C..No.1736/12 3 Crl.M.C..No.1736/12 4 Crl.M.C..No.1736/12 5 ## **THOMAS.P.JOSEPH,J.** Crl.M.C.No. of 200 ORDER 19/01/2011