High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-11-16Petition allowed; quashing of the proceedings a...

Unni @ Chitharanjan and others v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC No. 7306 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date: 2016-11-16
Court Decision / Holding: The court held that it is well within its extraordinary powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings. The petition was allowed, and Annexure-2 charge sheet along with all proceedings in CC 559/2016 were quashed.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; quashing of the proceedings and charge sheet in CC 559/2016

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Unni @ Chitharanjan
Biju
Rabeesh
Sanoj
Manoj
Maneesh
Saju
Sunil

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
M.S. Sudheesh

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. T.K.Ajithkumar (Valath)

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. P. Deepa Mohan
• Public Prosecutor
• Sri. T.R. Renjith

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court of Kerala decision responds to a criminal miscellaneous petition under section 482 CrPC filed by eight accused (petitioners) challenging CC 559/2016 initiated in the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, North Paravur. The accused, Nos. 1–8, were charged with offences under sections 143, 147, 323, and 294(b) read with section 149 IPC arising from an incident on 16.08.2016, when they allegedly formed an unlawful assembly and restrained and assaulted the second respondent. The petition argues that the dispute between the parties is personal and has been amicably resolved, asserting that continuation of the criminal proceedings would neither serve public peace nor justice, and seeking quashing under the extraordinary powers of 482 CrPC. The 2nd respondent supports settlement via affidavit, while the Public Prosecutor initially expresses reservations about quashing in such circumstances, noting no other pending cases against the petitioners. The court cites Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab to emphasize that courts may quash criminal proceedings when there is a genuine settlement and ends of justice demand it, and that abuse of process should be avoided. It finds the offences not grave and argues that quashing would promote peace and conserve judicial resources. Accordingly, the court quashes the charge sheet and all further proceedings in CC 559/2016, allowing the petition.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of CrPCIPC Sections 143, 147, 323, 294(b) read with Section 149

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that the dispute with the second respondent is personal in nature and has been amicably settled. They argued that continued criminal proceedings would be an unnecessary strain on resources and would subvert the ends of justice, particularly since there is no threat to public peace. They invoked the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, citing the need to terminate proceedings in light of an amicable settlement and the absence of grave or societal harm from the alleged offence. The affidavits and settlement were presented as a basis to quash the case, asserting that continued prosecution would amount to abuse of process and would be contrary to the ends of justice.

Contentions of Respondents

The State’s counsel initially urged caution, indicating reservations about invoking extraordinary powers in a case arising from a personal altercation. The Public Prosecutor noted that no other cases were pending against the petitioners but maintained that the authority to quash must be exercised prudently. The respondents acknowledged the settlement but argued that the decision should align with the principles laid down by Supreme Court decisions such as Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, while recognizing that the matter requires careful balancing of ends of justice and prevention of abuse of process.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 (10) SCC 303	Positive	Cited for the principle that, in appropriate cases, High Courts may quash criminal proceedings where there is an amicable settlement between the victim and the offender, to ensure ends of justice and avoid abuse of process.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	2014 (6) SCC 466	Positive	Reinforces the ends of justice and prevention of abuse of process as guiding factors in exercising the quashing power on 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 Unni @ Chitharanjan 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.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/25TH KARTHIKA, 1938 Crl.MC.No. 7306 of 2016 () --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 559/2016 of JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,NORTH PARAVUR (TEMPORARY) DATED CRIME NO. 855/2016 OF VARAPPUZHA POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 8: ---------------------------- 1. UNNI @ CHITHARANJAN, S/O. KRISHNAN, AGED 37 YEARS, AKATHOOR HOUSE, CHENNUR DESOM, KADAMAKKUDY VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK. 2. BIJU, S/O. PUSHKARAN, AGED 40 YEARS, ELAYIDATH HOUSE, CHENNUR DESOM, KADAMAKKUDY VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK. 3. RABEESH, S/O. RAMANAN, AGED 27 YEARS, AKATHOOT HOUSE, CHENNUR DESOM, KADAMAKKUDY VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK. 4. SANOJ, S/O. VASU, AGED 42 YEARS, VATTATHARA HOUSE, CHENNUR DESOM, KADAMAKKUDY VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK. 5. MANOJ, S/O. VISWAMBARAN, AGED 42 YEARS, VATTATHARA HOUSE, CHENNUR DESOM, KADAMAKKUDY VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK. 6. MANEESH, S/O. RAMANAN, AGED 26 YEARS, AKATHOOT HOUSE, CHENNUR DESOM, KADAMAKKUDY VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK. 7. SAJU, S/O. SUBRAMANYAN, AGED 43 YEARS, THATTARASSERY HOUSE, CHENNUR DESOM, KADAMAKKUDY VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK. 8. SUNIL, S/O. SUBRAMANYAN, AGED 40 YEARS, THATTARASSERY HOUSE, CHENNUR DESOM, KADAMAKKUDY VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.AJITHKUMAR (VALATH) CONTD...' :2: Crl.MC.No. 7306 of 2016 () --------------------------- RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.682031 2. M.S. SUDHEESH, S/O. SURESH, AGED 18 YEARS, MULAKARAN PARAMBIL HOUSE, CHENNUR DESOM, KADAMAKKUDY VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK.682027 R2 BY ADV. SMT.P.DEEPA MOHAN R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.T.R.RENJITH THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CONTD... **==> picture [19 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** Crl.MC.No. 7306 of 2016 () --------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS : --------------------- ANNEXURE 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR DATED 18.08.2016 CRIME NO. 855 OF 2016 OF VARAPUZHA POLICE STATION ANNEXURE 2 CERTIFIED COPY OF CHARGE SHEET DATED 30.08.2016 IN CRIME NO. 855 OF 2016 ANNEXURE 3 AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20.10.2016 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL --------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE SKS ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J** ## **---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No. 7306 of 2016** ## **----------------------------------------Dated this the 16[th] day of November, 2016** ## **O R D E R** - 1.This petition is filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code ) with a prayer to invoke the extraordinary inherent powers and to quash the pending criminal proceedings. - 2.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 to 8 in C.C. No. 559 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate - III, North Paravur. They stand indicted for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 294 (b) r/w Section 149 of the IPC. - 3.The prosecution allegation is that on 16.08.2016 at about - 8.30 p.m., the petitioners herein formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, wrongfully restrained the 2[nd] respondent herein and Crl.M.C. No. 7306 of 2016 2 thereafter assaulted him causing injuries. - 4.Heard the submissions advanced. - 5.The learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. Attention of this Court is invited to the affidavit filed by him to buttress his submission . It is urged that the dispute is purely personal in nature and would not affect public peace or tranquility. Summing up it is prayed that the criminal proceedings be terminated to promote peace and harmony. - 6.The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions has expressed his reservations in the matter of quashing the proceedings on the basis of settlement. It is submitted that the invocation of powers under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is not warranted. However, it is submitted that no other cases are reported against the petitioners. - 7.I have considered the submissions . Crl.M.C. No. 7306 of 2016 3 8.In **Gian singh v. State of Punjab** [2012 (10) SCC 303] Apex Court has laid down that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. It was observed as follows : _“61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”_ 9.The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in **Narinder singh v. State of Punjab.** [2014 (6) SCC 466, the pertinent observations which are as under: Crl.M.C. No. 7306 of 2016 4 ## _XXXXXXXXXXXX_ _29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:_ _(i) ends of justice, or_ _(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives._ _xxxxxxx_ _xxxxxxx_ 10.The offence committed by the petitioners cannot be said to be grave and serious having ingredients of extreme mental depravity. It also does not appear that the offence in this case will have a serious impact on the society. It is felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and secure the ends of justice. Even otherwise , persisting with the prosecution would be nothing but a waste of time as the prospects of conviction would be bleak. Crl.M.C. No. 7306 of 2016 5 11.Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court will be well justified in invoking its extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings. In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-2 charge sheet and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.C. No. 559 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate - III, North Paravur are quashed. **Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE** //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE SKS