Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeCrl.M.C. allowed; Annexure-1 FIR in Crime No. 8...

Thyagarajan and others v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C.No.4997/22

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Ziyad Rahman A.A.
Judgment Date
2023-01-19
Court Decision / Holding
The Court allowed the Criminal Misc. Case (Crl.M.C. No. 4997/22) and quashed Annexure-1 FIR in Crime No. 895/2022 of Puthoor Police Station along with all further proceedings thereto against the petitioners.
Final Disposition
Crl.M.C. allowed; Annexure-1 FIR in Crime No. 895/2022 and all further proceedings thereto against the petitioners are quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Thyagarajan
  • Jishnu
  • Suresh
  • Shaji B
  • Baiju
  • Sujith
  • Nishanth

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
  • Station House Officer, Puthoor Police Station, Kollam Rural
  • Shine
  • Jayakrishnan
  • Vishnu M alias Kochikka
  • Mahesh
  • Vinod U.S
  • Vineeth U.S
  • Adarsh V
  • Akhil Chandran
  • Rajesh M alias Reji
  • A Ratheesh alias Mathan
  • Sandeep
  • Manoj A

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Shakthi Prakash
  • • K. Dhruv Kumar
  • • Harikrishnan M.S.

Counsels for Respondents

  • • M.P. Prashanth
  • • K.R. Rajkumar
  • • Jagadeesh Lakshman
  • • Rahul Raj

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case (Crl.M.C. No. 4997/22) in which seven petitioners seek to quash proceedings arising from Crime No. 895 of 2022 of Puthoor Police Station. The FIR lists offences under IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 326, 308 and 506, read with section 149. Subsequently, the police report deleted the offence under section 326 IPC. The core issue is whether to quash the continued proceedings due to a settlement between parties. The 6th respondent, the de facto complainant and the victim, has sworn an affidavit acknowledging the settlement and expressing no objection to quashing; the SHO has verified its genuineness. The petition relies on the principle laid down in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 10 SCC 303 to invoke the inherent powers of the High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash where the dispute is private and continued prosecution would serve no fruitful purpose. The Public Prosecutor notes that affidavits of several respondents were not filed; the petitioners explain these respondents’ connection to a related case (Cr. No. 894/2022). In the end, the court permits the Crl.M.C. and quashes the FIR and all further proceedings against the petitioners.

Provisions of Law Cited

IPC Section 143IPC Section 147IPC Section 148IPC Section 294(b)IPC Section 341IPC Section 323IPC Section 324IPC Section 326IPC Section 308IPC Section 506 read with Section 149Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Gian Singh principle (private settlement may justify quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners’ counsel submitted that the dispute is private and the case has been settled by the parties. They highlighted the affidavit of the 6th respondent de facto complainant confirming the settlement and expressing no objection to quashing, with the Station House Officer verifying its genuineness. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, they urged invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR and discontinue proceedings since continuing would serve no fruitful purpose and would unnecessarily harass the parties.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor pointed to procedural concerns, noting that affidavits from respondents 3–5 and 7–14 were not on record. The petitioners explained these respondents were tied to a related crime (Cr. No. 894/2022) and their inclusion was for the same incident. The State’s counsel acknowledged the settlement’s verification but argued that a careful examination of public interest and procedural completeness was warranted before quashing.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another(2012) 10 SCC 303PositiveThe Supreme Court held that a settlement between parties can justify quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., a principle the Kerala High Court applies to quash the ongoing case in light of the private settlement.

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 Thyagarajan and others v. State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

Crl.M.C.No.4997/22 1 ## _IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM_ ## _PRESENT_ _THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. THURSDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 29TH POUSHA, 1944_ _CRL.MC NO. 4997 OF 2022_ _CRIME NO.0895/2022 OF PUTHOOR POLICE STATION, Kollam_ _PETITIONERS:_ _1 THYAGARAJAN, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.SUKUMARAN, NANDANAM, KOTTATHALA P.O., KOLLAM, PIN – 691 566. 2 JISHNU, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. PUSHPANGADAN, NISHANTH BHAVAN, KOTTATHALA, PIN – 691 566._ _3 SURESH, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.ANANDASAGARAN, BAIJU BHAVAN, KOTTATHALA, PIN – 691 566. 4 SHAJI B, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.ANIL KUMAR, KAMBIKKATTUVADAKKATHIL, VENDAR P.O., PIN – 691 507._ _5 BAIJU, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.SUKUMARAN, CHARYAYIL VEEDU, VENAR P.O., PIN – 691 507. 6 SUJITH, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.BHASKARAN, KIZHAKKEPARAYANKAALA, VENDAR P.O. KOLLAM, PIN – 691 507._ Crl.M.C.No.4997/22 2 _7 NISHANTH, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.VASUDEVAN, SUJITH BHAVAN, VENDAR P.O. KOLLAM, PIN – 691 507._ _BY ADVS. SHAKTHI PRAKASH K.DHRUV KUMAR HARIKRISHNAN M.S._ ## _RESPONDENTS:_ _1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682 031. 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PUTHOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM RURAL, PUTHOOR, PIN – 691 566. 3 SHINE, AGED 39 YEARS, SHARATH BHAVAN, THEVALAPPURAM, PUTHOOR, KOLLAM, PIN – 691 507. 4 JAYAKRISHNAN, AGED 21 YEARS, VATHIYILAZHIKATHU VEEDU, PUTHUNAMBALAM, KUNNATHUR, KOLLAM, PIN – 690 540. 5 VISHNU M @KOCHIKKA, AGED 30 YEARS, MANIMANDIRAM, PUTHANAMBALAM, KUNNATHUR, KOLLAM, PIN – 690 540. 6 MAHESH, AGED 21 YEARS, THEKKEPLATHARA VEEDU, IVERKALA,_ Crl.M.C.No.4997/22 3 _PUTHOOR, KOLLAM, PIN – 691 507._ _7 VINOD U.S, AGED 35 YEARS, THEKKEDATH, IVERKALA NADUVIL, IVERKALA, KOLLAM, PIN – 691 507._ - _8 VINEETH U.S, AGED 33 YEARS, THEKKEDATH, IVERKALA NADUVIL, IVERKALA, KOLLAM, PIN – 691 507._ _9 ADARSH V, AGED 28 YEARS, PALAKOTTU, IVERKALA EAST P.O., KOLLAM, PIN – 691 507._ - _10 AKHIL CHANDRAN, AGED 29 YEARS,_ _ARUN NIVAS, PUTHENAMBALAM, KUNNATHUR, KOLLAM, PIN – 690 540._ _11 RAJESH M @REJI, AGED 50 YEARS, PLATHARA MELETHIL, IVERKALA EAST P.O., KOLLAM, PIN – 691 507._ _12 A RATHEESH @ MATHAN, AGED 37 YEARS, NANDYATTU VEEDU, KUNNATHU EAST, KOLLAM, PIN – 690 540._ - _13 SANDEEP, AGED 32 YEARS,_ _UTHRATTATHI, IVERKALA EAST P.O., KOLLAM, PIN – 691 507._ - _14 MANOJ A, AGED 40 YEARS,_ _ROHINI HOUSE, AMBALATHUM BHAGOM, PORUVAZHI P.O.,_ Crl.M.C.No.4997/22 4 _KOLLAM, PIN – 690 520._ _BY ADVS. SRI.M.P.PRASHANTH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR K.R.RAJKUMAR JAGADEESH LAKSHMAN(K/000182/1994) RAHUL RAJ(K/692/2010)_ _THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:_ Crl.M.C.No.4997/22 5 ## **O R D E R** The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 7 in Crime No.895 of 2022 of Puthoor Police Station, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 326, 308, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC. 2. The 6[th] respondent is the de facto complainant in this Case. Subsequently a report was submitted by the Police deleting the offence under Section 326 IPC. Annexure-1 is the FIR. This Crl.M.C. is filed to quash all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A1. 3. Heard, Sri.Shakthi Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.M.P.Prashanth, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri.K.R.Rajkumar, learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 14. 4. Prayer for quashing the proceedings is sought mainly on the ground that the dispute between the parties has been settled. Annexure-3 affidavit sworn by the 6[th] respondent/de facto complainant is filed along with this Crl.M.C. to substantiate the settlement. In the said affidavit, the 6[th] respondent/de facto complainant had specifically acknowledged the aforesaid settlement and also conveyed the noobjection to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein. The learned counsel appearing for the 6[th] respondent/de facto complainant Crl.M.C.No.4997/22 6 also confirms the same. The learned Public Prosecutor, upon instructions, submitted that the Station House Officer concerned has verified the veracity of the same and found it to be genuine. 5. The allegations would reveal that the dispute is purely private in nature. In such circumstances, by applying the principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [(2012) 10 SCC 303]** , proceedings can be quashed by invoking the powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. This is particularly because, on account of the settlement, no fruitful purpose would be served by allowing the prosecution to continue. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that, even though respondents 3 to 5 and 7 to 14 were shown as respondents, affidavits of the said respondents were not seen incorporated. In response to the said submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the aforesaid respondents were impleaded in the party array in view of the fact that in connection with the very same incident Crime No.894 of 2022 was registered by the same police station, in which the respondents 3 to 14 were arrayed as the accused persons and the injured are the petitioners herein. Crl.M.C.No.5006 of 2022 is also filed by the petitioners therein to quash the proceedings therein, in view of Crl.M.C.No.4997/22 7 the mutual settlement between the parties who were impleaded as respondents. Moreover, it is also seen from the contents of the FIR that, the victim is the 6[th] respondent. In such circumstances, I deem it appropriate to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings on the basis of the affidavit filed by the 6[th] respondent and also taking note of the other relevant aspects. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, and Annexure-1 FIR submitted in Crime No.895 of 2022 of Puthoor Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant thereto, against the petitioners are hereby quashed. Sd/- **ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.** **JUDGE** DG/20.01.23 Crl.M.C.No.4997/22 8 ## _APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4997/2022_ _PETITIONER ANNEXURES_ _Annexure1 TRUE COPY OF FIR NO. 895 OF 2022 OF PUTHOOR POLICE STATION Annexure2 TRUE COPY OF FIR NO. 894 OF 2022 OF PUTHOOR POLICE STATION Annexure3 AFFIDAVIT OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT DE FACTO COMPLAINANT IN FIR NO. 895 OF 2022 OF PUTHOOR POLICE STATION DATED 21.07.2022_