Vikraman Pillai v. State of Kerala and Gayathri (De facto complainant)

``` 2025:KER:22934 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** # **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1946 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 10021 OF 2023 ``` ``` CRIME NO.48/2021 OF Neyyattinkara Police Station, ``` ## **`Thiruvananthapuram`** ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.1265 OF 2021 ``` ``` OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,NEYYATTINKARA ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED:`** ``` VIKRAMAN PILLAI AGED 65 YEARS S/O. KUMARAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT LEKSHMI NIVAS, VADDY THOPPU,CONVENT ROAD, BACK OF KSRTC BUST STAND, KADAVATTARAM DESHAM, NEYYATTINKARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695121 ``` ``` BY ADV S.SREEKUMAR (KOLLAM) ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/STATE AND DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031`** - **`2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER NEYYATTINKARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695121`** - **`3 GAYATHRI AGED 22 YEARS`** ``` D/O. VIJAYALEKSHMI, RESIDING AT LEKSHMI SADANAM, VADDYTHOPPU,CONVENT ROAD, BACK OF KSRTC BUST STAND, KADAVATTARAM DESHAM, NEYYATTINKARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695121 ``` ``` SRI. C.N. PRABHAKARAN (SR.PP) ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 2025:KER:22934 ``` Crl.MC.No.10021 of 2023 :2: **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **C.JAYACHANDRAN, J.** ------------------------------------ ## **Crl.MC.No.10021 of 2023** -----------------------------------Dated this the 7[th] day of March, 2025 ## **O R D E R** ``` A five Judges Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kulwinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another[(2007) 4 CTC 769], framed broad guidelines as regards quashment of the criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code in respect of offences which are not compoundable in terms of Section 320 of the Code. One among the guidelines was that the offences against human body, other than murder and culpable homicide, may be permitted to be compounded, when the court is in a position to record a finding that the settlement between the parties is voluntary and fair. These guidelines were quoted with approval by a three ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:22934 ``` Crl.MC.No.10021 of 2023 **==> picture [13 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another [(2012) 10 SCC 303]. Similarly inNarinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab [(2014) 6 SCC 466], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has gone to the extent of sanctioning invocation of the inherent power under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the F.I.R in a crime alleging offence under Section 307, which is a henious and serious offence. A practical approach is seen adopted by the Hon'ble Supreme inMadan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [(2008) 4 SCC 582] as regards quashment in respect of offences like 379, 406, 409, 418, etc., the relevant findings of which are extracted herebelow: ``` ``` “6.We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the ``` ``` 2025:KER:22934 ``` Crl.MC.No.10021 of 2023 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [13 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground ofrealitiesandbereftofthe technicalities of the law.” ``` ``` 2.In the facts at hand, petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.48 of 2021 of Neyyattinkara Police Station, Thirvanathapuram, now pending as C.C.No.1265/2021 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Neyyattinkara. The offences alleged are under Section 294(b) and 348 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner seeks quashment of entire proceedings in the above Calendar Case, on the strength of the settlement arrived at by and between the parties. ``` ``` 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learnedcounselforthedefacto ``` ``` 2025:KER:22934 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** Crl.MC.No.10021 of 2023 **==> picture [13 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` complainant/respondent no.3 and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the records. ``` ``` 5. When this Crl.M.C was moved, this Court directed to record the statement of the defacto complainant. The said direction was complied and the statement was handed over. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the issues between the petitioner and the defacto complainant are settled amicably and that the instant Crl.M.C was filed with the knowledge and consent of the defacto complainant, wherefore, she has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. That apart, it is noticed that, along with this Crl.M.C, an affidavit has been sworn to by the defacto complainant (3[rd] respondent herein) as Annexure-A3, wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes have been settled and that the complaint emanated from some misunderstanding. The defacto complainant would also swear that she does not ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:22934 ``` ## Crl.MC.No.10021 of 2023 **==> picture [13 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` intend to proceed further with the prosecution case and that she has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The affidavit is sworn to on her own volition, without any compulsion, whatsoever. This Court is therefore convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine and bonafide. Learned counsel for the defacto complainant/ 3[rd] respondent would also endorse that the quashment sought for can be allowed. ``` ``` 6. In the light of the above referred facts, this Court is of the opinion that the necessary parameters, as culled out in Narinder Singh (supra), Madan Mohan Abbot (supra) and Gian Singh (Supra), are fully satisfied. This court is convinced that further proceedings against the petitioner will be a futile exercise, inasmuch as the disputes have already been settled. There is little possibility of any conviction in the crime. Dehors the settlement arrived at by and between the parties, if they are ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:22934 ``` Crl.MC.No.10021 of 2023 **==> picture [13 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` compelled to face the criminal proceedings, the same, in the estimation of this Court, will amount to abuse of process of Court. The quashment sought for would secure the ends of justice. ``` ``` In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-A1 FIR, Annexure-A2 Final Report, and all further proceedings in C.C.No.1265/2021 of the JudicialFirstClassMagistrateCourt-I, Neyyattinkara, are hereby quashed. ``` ``` sd/- ``` ## **C. JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE.** Raj. ``` 2025:KER:22934 ``` Crl.MC.No.10021 of 2023 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** :8: ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 10021/2023`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`** ``` Annexure A1THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR NO. 48/2021 OF NEYYATTINKARA POLICE STATION DATED 07.01.2021 ``` ``` Annexure A2THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN C.C. NO. 1265 /2021 OF JFMC-1, NEYYATTINKARA ``` ``` Annexure A3AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 30TH OCTOBER, 2023 SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT (DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT) BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT ```