Vishnu and others v. State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
Judgment Date: 2022-06-21
Court Decision / Holding: Crl.M.C. allowed. Annexure-1 FIR in Crime No.108/2022 of Karunagapally Police Station and all further proceedings against the petitioners except 1st and 9th petitioners are quashed.
Final Disposition: Crl.M.C allowed; quashed as to all petitioners except 1st and 9th.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Vishnu
Ali Ummer
Muhammed Faisal
Mani
Nabeel
Muhammed Ashif A.
Gokul
Chandu
Muhammed Faisal Khan
Sandeep A

Respondents

State of Kerala
Ampady (de facto complainant)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Saijo Hassan
• Renjini M.
• Renjith Benoj C
• Augustin Rafeeq V.K.
• U.M. Hassan
• P. Parvathy
• Aathira Sunny

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor Akhilesh S.
• C S Hrithwik

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case arises from Crime No. 108/2022 registered at Karunagapally Police Station for offences under IPC Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 447, 294(b), 506, 341, 324, 308 and Section 149 read with 34, IPC. The petitioners, ten accused, moved to quash the FIR and all further proceedings on the ground that a private dispute between the parties has been settled; the injured defacto complainant swore Annexure-2 stating there is no subsisting grievance and has no objection to quashing. The Public Prosecutor verified the settlement’s genuineness. The prosecution highlighted that several petitioners have pending cases including sections 326, 395 and 308 for some, indicating possible consequences of quashing without reservation. The court recognized the private nature of the dispute and, invoking Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another (2012 (4) KLT 108), exercised its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR and proceedings as against all petitioners except the 1st and 9th petitioners, who have multiple pending cases. The order clarifies that the FIR and proceedings are quashed against the majority, while continuing against those two. The judgment affirms the authority to quash criminal proceedings where there is a settlement and no subsisting grievance, citing settled law.

Provisions of Law Cited

IPC 143IPC 144IPC 147IPC 148IPC 447IPC 294(b)IPC 506IPC 341IPC 324IPC 308IPC 149r/w 34 IPCSection 482 Cr.P.C.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 4 KLT 108 — relied upon to exercise powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash private disputes where there is a settlement and no subsisting grievance.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that the dispute was private and settled; Annexure-2 sworn by the injured defacto complainant stated no subsisting grievance and no objection to quashing. They urged quashing of Crime No.108/2022 and all further proceedings under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C., citing Gian Singh. They argued that investigation and prosecution would be futile given settlement and lack of grievance.

Contentions of Respondents

The State/prosecution acknowledged the settlement but pointed to multiple pending cases against some accused and substantial offences alleged, suggesting caution in quashing proceedings entirely; the SHO’s verification of the settlement and the injured party’s lack of grievance were considered, but the court was urged to preserve some proceedings against certain accused.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another	2012(4) KLT 108	Positive	Court followed Gian Singh to exercise the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash where the dispute is private and a settlement exists.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.** **TUESDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 31ST JYAISHTA, 1944** ## **CRL.MC NO. 2024 OF 2022** Crime No.108/2022 of Karunaagapally Police Station ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 TO 10:** 1 VISHNU AGED 25 YEARS S/O. KARTHIKEYAN, KAREPALLI KIZHAKKATHIL, THAZHAVA VILLAGE, KADATHOOR P.O., KOLLAM., PIN - 690523 2 ALI UMMER AGED 20 YEARS S/O. NASSAR, FATHIMA MANZIL, VAVVAKKAVU, KULASHEKARAM VILLAGE, KADATHOOR P.O., KOLLAM., PIN - 690523 3 MUHAMMED FAISAL AGED 25 YEARS FOUSIYA MANZIL, CHANGANKULANGARA, VAVVAKKAVU P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, OCHIRA., PIN - 690528 4 MANI AGED 19 YEARS S/O. SURENDRAN, MUNDAPALLI KIZHAKKATHIL, VAVVAKKAVU, KULASHEKARAM VILLAGE, KADATHOOR P.O., KOLLAM., PIN - 690523 5 NABEEL AGED 20 YEARS S/O. NASSAR, AMBIYIL PUTHENVEEDU, VAVVAKKAVU, 2 ## Crl.M.C No.2024 of 2022 KULASHEKARAM VILLAGE, KADATHOOR P.O., KOLLAM., PIN - 690523 6 MUHAMMED ASHIF A. AGED 24 YEARS PUTHUSSERI THARA THEKKATHIL, VAVVAKKAVU P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, OACHIRA., PIN - 690528 7 GOKUL AGED 20 YEARS S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN, LAKSHMI BHAVANAM, VAVVAKKAVU, CHANGANKULANGARA, OACHIRA VILLAGE, KOLLAM., PIN - 690528 8 CHANDU AGED 19 YEARS S/O. ASOKAN, TENGANATH AMMAVETTIL, VAVVAKKAVU, CHANGANKULANGARA, OACHIRA VILLAGE, KOLLAM, PIN - 690528 9 MUHAMMED FAISAL KHAN AGED 25 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMED NISSAR, RAHIM MANZIL (FAIZAL PALACE), PULIYOOR VANCHI, NORTH NURSERY MUKKU, THODIYUR VILLAGE, KOLLAM, PIN - 690523 10 SANDEEP A AGED 25 YEARS S/O. LATE ANIL KUMAR R, VADANAM, KARUNAGAPPALLY, VAVVAKKAVU P.O., KULASEKHARAPURAM VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM., PIN - 690523 BY ADVS. SAIJO HASSAN RENJINI M. RENJITH BENOJ C AUGUSTIN RAFEEK. V.K. U.M.HASSAN P.PARVATHY AATHIRA SUNNY 3 Crl.M.C No.2024 of 2022 NAZRIN HALLAJ ABHIRAMI DINESH ## **RESPONDENT/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** 1 STATE OF KERALA HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 AMPADY AGED 27 YEARS SON OF PRABHUDAN, KOTHERI VELLAMPAL VEEDU, THODIYOOR, KOLLAM, PIN - 690523 BY ADVS. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AKHILESH S. ADV . C S HRITHWIK -SR PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: 4 Crl.M.C No.2024 of 2022 ## **O R D E R** The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.108/2022 of Karunaagapally Police Station which is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 447, 294(b), 506, 341, 324, 308, 149 and r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case is that, the petitioners herein in furtherance of common intention have assaulted the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant on 23.01.2022 at 15.00 hours, and caused injures to him, Annexure-1 is the FIR registered by the police and this Crl.MC is filed for quashing all further proceedings pursuant thereto. 3. Heard Sri. Saijo Hassan the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. C.S Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and Sri. Akhilesh S., the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. 4. The prayer for quashing the above proceedings is sought for by the petitioners on the ground that, the dispute 5 Crl.M.C No.2024 of 2022 between the parties has been settled and to substantiate the same, the injured person has sworn Annexure-2 affidavit. The aforesaid affidavit indicates that, the matter has been settled and the injured person has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners herein. He also conveyed that he has no objection in quashing the proceedings against the petitioners herein. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent /injured person also confirmed the same. The learned Public Prosecutor upon instructions submitted that the veracity of the settlement was verified by the Station House officer concerned and before the SHO also, the injured person has reiterated that, he does not have any objection in quashing the proceedings as he has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners herein. 5. However the leaned Public Prosecution points out that, as against the 1st petitioner, there are 9 criminal cases pending and the offences includes Sections 326, 395 and 308 etc. Similarly 9 th petitioner is also involved in three other criminal cases in which various offences in the nature of Sections 308 and 395. Taking into account the aforesaid aspects, the learned Public Prosecutor 6 Crl.M.C No.2024 of 2022 points out that, the interference need not be made in respect of aforesaid accused persons. 6. With regard to the other accused persons, even though the offence alleged includes Section 308 of IPC, on perusal of the records, it is seen that, no serious injuries are seen sustained by the defacto complainant. In the affidavit sworn by the defacto complainant he had clearly stated that, he does not want to pursue the matter further as against the petitioners. The parties are known to each other and all their disputes have been settled. In such circumstances, I am inclined to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.PC and to quash the proceedings as against the petitioners herein except 1st and 9th petitioners to whom there are several criminal cases pending. 5. Going through the materials available on record, it is discernible that, the dispute is basically private in nature and on account of settlement arrived at between the parties, no purpose would be served if the proceedings against the petitioners herein were allowed to continue. In such circumstances, the chances of a successful prosecution are very bleak. Therefore, I am of the view 7 Crl.M.C No.2024 of 2022 that going by the decision in **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and** **Another [2012(4) KLT 108],** this is a fit case in which the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked. Accordingly, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-1 FIR in Crime No.108/2022 of Karunaagapally Police Station and all further proceedings against the petitioners except 1st and 9th petitioners are hereby quashed. Sd/- **ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A** **JUDGE** rpk 8 Crl.M.C No.2024 of 2022 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2024/2022** PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR DATED 24.01.2022 IN CRIME NO. 108 OF 2022 OF KARUNAGAPALLY POLICE STATION Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11.03.2022