High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-10-03Petition allowed; proceedings quashed.

Vinu, Nibin, Tenish, Shijo and Shan v. State of Kerala and Godson Figarero

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C.No.5802 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
Judgment Date: 2016-10-03
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is allowed; the High Court quashes the proceedings and CC 332/2016 pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Njarakkal, as against the petitioners. Annexure A1 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto are quashed.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; proceedings quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Vinu
Nibin
Tenish
Shijo
Shan

Respondents

STATE OF KERALA represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Godson Figarero

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri E.C. Bineesh
• Smt. M.B. Shyni

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri P.T. Manoj (advocate for R2/Defacto Complainant)
• Public Prosecutor Sri Amjad Ali

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.MC.No.5802 of 2016) before the Kerala High Court, wherein five petitioners — Vinu, Nibin, Tenish, Shijo and Shan — challenge proceedings in CC 332/2016 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Njarakkal. The accused faced charges under sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323 and 324 read with section 149 IPC, arising from an alleged assault on 18 March 2012 in the context of longstanding enmity. The petition under section 482 CrPC seeks quashing of the private criminal proceedings on the ground that the parties have amicably settled the dispute; the second respondent (the de facto complainant) has sworn an affidavit stating the dispute no longer subsists. The petitioning counsel relies on established authorities, notably Gian Singh v State of Punjab and Another, which held that 482 CrPC power can quash not only within the purview of 320 but also when a settlement exists in cases with predominantly civil or private flavour. The court also cites Narinder Singh v State of Punjab and Rajesh Kamath J. v Mohana Kurup for guidelines. After examining the nature of the offence, the judge found it not grave, and that continued prosecution would cause oppression given the private settlement. Accordingly, the High Court quashed the proceedings, rendering Annexure A1 final report and related proceedings null.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)Section 320 of CrPCSections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 read with Section 149 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC can be based on settlements between private parties (private disputes).
The High Court's power under Section 482 CrPC is not limited to the scope of Section 320 CrPC and can apply in cases with an overwhelming civil flavour.
Guidelines from Supreme Court decisions in private-settlement contexts (Gian Singh; Narinder Singh; Rajesh Kamath J. v. Mohana Kurup) inform exercise of 482 CrPC power in quashing private prosecutions.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that there is a settlement between the parties, supported by Annexure A2, which declares that the dispute does not subsist. Relying on Gian Singh and subsequent judgments (Narinder Singh, Rajesh Kamath J.), they argued that Section 482 CrPC empowers the High Court to quash proceedings in cases with a private, civil-like flavour where continuing prosecution would be oppressive and futile given the settlement.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents (through the 2nd respondent and public prosecutor) acknowledged the amicable settlement but contended that the court must still advance the public interest and evaluate whether the offences have grave implications. They rely on the settled legal position that quashing under 482 CrPC depends on the nature of the offence and public interest, but ultimately the court exercised its discretion, guided by the private settlement and the lack of grave gravity.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another	2012 (10) SCC 303	Positive	Cited to support the expansive use of 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings based on settlements between private parties, even beyond private-transaction contexts.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	2014 (6) SCC 466	Positive	Cited for guidelines on quashing in private-settlement contexts and expanding 482 CrPC considerations.
Rajesh Kamath J. and Others v. Mohana Kurup and Others	AIR 2016 SC 2452	Positive	Cited to illustrate recent Supreme Court guidance on quashing in civil-flavour offences and private settlements.

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 Vinu, Nibin, Tenish, Shijo and Shan v. State of Kerala and Godson Figarero 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** **MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/11TH ASWINA, 1938** ## **Crl.MC.No. 5802 of 2016 ()** **--------------------------(CC 332/2016 of JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, NJARAKKAL CRIME NO. 470/2012 OF NARAKKAL POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:** **----------------------------------** ## **1. VINU** **AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.GEORGE, PAYYAPPILLY HOUSE, OCHAMTHURUTH, PUTHUVYPPU VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT** ## **2. NIBIN** **AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.LOUISE,** **ARAKKAL HOUSE, OCHAMTHURUTH, PUTHUVYPPU VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT** ## **3. TENISH** **AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.ANTONY, KODIYANTHARA HOUSE, OCHAMTHURUTH, PUTHUVYPPU VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT** ## **4. SHIJO** **AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, ININGATTU HOUSE, OCHAMTHURUTH, PUTHUVYPPU VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT** ## **5. SHAN** **AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.AUGUSTIN, IRUMPANATH HOUSE, OCHAMTHURUTH, PUTHUVYPPU VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT** ## **BY ADVS.SRI.E.C.BINEESH SMT.M.B.SHYNI** **RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** **--------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM** **2. GODSON FIGARERO** **AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH FIGARERO, RESIDING AT PUTHUSSERYVETTIL HOUSE, OCHANTHURUTH KARA, PUTHUVYPPU VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT** **R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.T.MANOJ BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-102016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **Crl.MC.No. 5802 of 2016 ()** **---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES** **-----------------------------------** **ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO. 470/2012 OF NJARAKKAL POLICE STATION, SUBMITTED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, NJARAKKAL, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT** **ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/DEFACT COMPLAINANT DATED 17.08.2016** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES** ## **NIL** **/TRUE COPY/** **VPS P.S. TO JUDGE** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.5802 of 2016 ----------------------------------------Dated this the 3[rd] day of October, 2016** ## **O R D E R** - 1.This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Code') has been preferred by the petitioners herein for quashing the proceedings pending against them as C.C.No.332 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Njarakkal. In the said case, they stand indicted for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 read with Section 149 of the IPC. - 2.The prosecution allegation is that on 18.3.2012, owing to previous enmity, the petitioners assaulted the 2[nd] respondent and caused injuries. - 3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the 2[nd] respondent as well as the learned Public Crl.M.C.5802/2016 2 Prosecutor. - 4.It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the - 2[nd] respondent that the disputes have been amicably resolved. Reference is also made to Annexure-A2 affidavit sworn to by him wherein it is asserted that the dispute does not subsist any more. - 5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, this Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings. - 6.In **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another** [2012 - (10)SCC 303], the Apex Court has crystalised the position in respect of the powers vested in the High Court under S.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to quash criminal proceedings. It was held that the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is not limited to quashing proceedings within the ambit and scope of Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Crl.M.C.5802/2016 3 Code. The three - Judge Bench in the above case, clearly expounded, that quashing of criminal proceedings under S.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, could also be based on settlements between private parties, and could also on a compromise between the offender and the victim. Only that, the above power did not extend to crimes against the society. It is also relevant to mention, that the jurisdiction vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for quashing criminal proceedings, was held to be exercisable in criminal cases having an overwhelming and predominatingly civil flavour, particularly offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership, or such like transactions. Or even offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc. or family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal. In all such cases, the parties should have resolved their entire dispute by themselves, mutually. Further, guidelines were Crl.M.C.5802/2016 4 issued by the Apex Court in **Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab** [2014 (6) SCC 466] and recently in **Rajesh Kamath J. and Others v. Mohana Kurup and Others** [AIR 2016 SC 2452]. 7.I have considered the rival submissions and I have gone through the materials on record. 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. More over, when the party respondent has settled the matter, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and the continuation of the criminal case against the petitioners would be a futile exercise. It would also put the petitioners and the party respondent to great oppression and prejudice. I am of the view that there is no reason to deny the prayer sought for. - 8.Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court will be well justified in Crl.M.C.5802/2016 5 invoking its extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings. In the result, this petition will stand allowed. AnnexureA1 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioners now pending as C.C.No.332 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Njarakkal are quashed. **Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE** vps