High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-11-03Petition dismissed; quashing refused with direc...

Vineesh, Pradeep @ Balu and Sajith Kumar @ Shankaran v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C.No. 4607 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan.V.
Judgment Date: 2016-11-03
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is dismissed. While settlement principles from Gian Singh and Narinder Singh are acknowledged for appropriate cases, offences of a grave nature (like 307 IPC) are not private disputes and cannot be quashed. The trial should proceed with expedition.
Final Disposition: Petition dismissed; quashing refused with directions to expedite trial.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Vineesh
Pradeep @ Balu
Sajith Kumar @ Shankaran

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Prem Kumar
Sheela. S

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• J.R. Prem Navaz
• P.T. Sheejish

Counsels for Respondents

• Ajoy Venu R
• Amjad Ali (Public Prosecutor)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case arising from a final report in Crime No. 1276/2014 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate III, Neyyattinkara, invoking offences under IPC sections 450, 294(b), 427, 326 and 307 r/w 34. The petitioners, accused 1–3, challenged the proceedings on the ground of amicable settlements with the private respondents and invoked the High Court's inherent powers to quash under the principle established in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, and related cases. The respondents contended that the alleged offences, particularly section 307 (attempt to commit murder), are heinous and involve society at large, and not personal disputes; hence the proceedings could not be quashed. The court reviewed the law on settlement of criminal disputes. It noted that while Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, and Yogendra Yadav recognize the admissibility of compromised settlements to end criminal proceedings in appropriate cases, those decisions exclude grave offences such as murder, rape, dacoity, and similarly serious crimes. The judge found that the present offences cannot be treated as private disputes since they disturb public peace. Consequently, the court refused to quash the final report. However, it directed an expeditious disposal of the case in the trial court. The petition was accordingly dismissed with observations emphasizing the need to protect peace and societal interest.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 450 IPCSection 294(b) IPCSection 427 IPCSection 326 IPCSection 307 r/w 34 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Inherent powers of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings (CrPC 482) in the interest of justice
Ends of justice doctrine
Amicable settlement in criminal disputes can terminate proceedings (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab)
Exceptions for grave offences; not all cases permit quashing where offences are heinous
Crimes against society (offences like 307 IPC) are not merely private disputes

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argued that affidavits sworn by the victims absolve them and that a settlement reached with the private respondents warrants invoking the High Court's inherent powers to quash, citing Gian Singh and Narinder Singh to secure ends of justice and prevent abuse of process.

Contentions of Respondents

The State and private respondents contended that the offences, especially section 307 IPC, are heinous and not private disputes; such crimes affect societal peace and cannot be quashed on settlement.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another	2012 (10) SCC 303	Positive	Recognized that amicable settlements may end criminal proceedings in appropriate cases, guiding the present Court's approach.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	2014 (6) SCC 466	Positive	Reiterated that such power exists but not for heinous offences.
Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another	2014 (9) SCC 653	Positive	Further support for settlement-based quashing in suitable cases.
State of M.P. v. Manish and Others	2015 (8) SCC 307	Positive	Held that grave offences are not private disputes; crime against society.
State of M.P. v. Deepak and Others	2014 (10) SCC 285	Positive	Similarly acknowledged crime against society for grave offences.

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 Vineesh, Pradeep @ Balu and Sajith Kumar @ Shankaran 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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/12TH KARTHIKA, 1938 Crl.MC.No. 4607 of 2016 () --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CP 45/2016 of J.M.F.C.III,NEYYATTINKARA DATED CRIME NO. 1276/2014 OF BALARAMAPURAM POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANDAPURAM PETITIONER(S): ------------- 1. VINEESH AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. VIJAYAKUMAR, RESIDING AT VARUVILAKATHU VEEDU, KOTTUKAL VILLAGE, MANGALATHUKONAM, PUTHANKANAM, VENGANOOR VILLAGE, VENGANOOR PO., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695523 2. PRADEEP @ BALU S/O. VISWAMBARAN, RESIDING AT CHARUVILA PUTHENVEEDU, KAVINPURAM, ANTHIYOOR DESOM, KOTTUKKAL VILLAGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695523 3. SAJITH KUMAR @ SHANKARAN AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. SUDHAKARAN, RESIDING AT EDAMANAKKUZHI LAKSHMI VILASAM, HOUSE, KOTTUKAL VILLAGE, ANTHIYOOR DESOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT PIN 695523 BY ADVS.SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ SRI.P.T.SHEEJISH RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM 2. PREM KUMAR AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. RAVEENDRAN, RESIDING AT VARUVILAKATHU CONTD.... :2: Crl.MC.No. 4607 of 2016 () --------------------------- PUTHEN VEEDU, VENGANOOR PO., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695523 3. SHEELA. S AGED 49 YEARS, D/O SREEMATHI, RESIDING AT VARUVILAKATHU HOUSE, MANGALATHUKONAM, PUTHANKANAM, VENGANOOR PO., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, 695523 R2,3 BY ADV. SRI.AJOY VENU R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CONTD... **==> picture [23 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** Crl.MC.No. 4607 of 2016 () --------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN C.P.NO.45/16 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-111, NEYYATTINKARA, AROSE FROM CRIME NO. 1276/2014 OF THE BALARAMAPURAM POLICE STATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT ANNEXURE B: THE AFFIDAVIT SOLEMNLY AFFIRMED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT DATED 06.05.2016 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL ----------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE SKS ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 4607 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 3[rd] November, 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **O R D E R** 1. The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 to 3 in C.P. No. 45 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistate III, Neyyattinkara. They faces allegations for having committed offences punishable under Section 450, 294 (b), 427, 326, 307 r/w 34 of the IPC. The prayer in this petition is to quash the final report in the aforesaid case. - 2.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the 1[st] respondent and also the learned Public Prosecutor. - 3.It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents that seperate affidavits have been sworn to by the victims completely absolving the petitioners. It is further submitted that in view of the compromise arrived at between the petitioners and the private respondents, the Crl.M.C. No. 4607 of 2016 2 inherent power can be exercised by this Court and the entire proceedings are liable to be quashed. Reference is made to the judgment of the Apex Court in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another** [2012(10) SCC 303] and **Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab** [2014(6) SCC 466] to contend that this Court will be justified in exercising inherent powers in a case of this nature to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. - 4.On instructions the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioners are habitual offenders with a long criminal history sheet. It is pointed out that in the instant case, the offence allged is one under section 307 of the IPC, which by no stretch of imagination can be said to be private or personal. - 5.I have considered the submissions and have perused the records . The law with regard to the settlement of criminal Crl.M.C. No. 4607 of 2016 3 disputes on the strength of an amicable resolution of the disputes between the parties is no more _res integra_ . **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. This view was reiterated in **Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014 (6) SCC 466) and Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another (2014 (9) SCC 653).** However, it was held that such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Offences under Section 307 IPC was also held to fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be Crl.M.C. No. 4607 of 2016 4 generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone unless special circumstances come to the notice of the Court to take a different view _._ 6.The Apex Court in **State of M.P. v. Manish and Others (2015 (8) SCC 307)** and also in **State of M.P. v. Deepak and Others (2014 (10) SCC 285** ) has held that certain grave offences cannot be treated as a private dispute between the parties _inter se_ but is to be held to be a crime against the society. 7.After hearing the rival submissions and taking note of the antecedents of the petitioners, I am of the view that based on a reported settlement with the victims, the proceedings against the petitioners herein cannot be quashed. The offences cannot be said to be strictly private or personal in nature and it has got the tendency of to effect the maintenance of peace and tranquility of the society as well. Crl.M.C. No. 4607 of 2016 5 8.However taking note of the facts and circumstances, the Court below is directed to make an endeavor to take up and dispose of the case in an expeditious manner . The petition will stand dismissed with the above observations. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE** SKS //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE