High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-03-10Quashed

Vishnu @ Pallak and Others v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:CRL.MC NO. 6626 OF 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Judgment Date: 2023-03-10
Court Decision / Holding: Final order quashing all proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No.515/2018 (CP 29/2019).
Final Disposition: Quashed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

VISHNU @ PALLAK
ASHOK KUMAR
RENJITH
KRISHNAKUMAR@VISHNU
SUMOD
ANURAJ
ANEESH
PREMJITH
ANANTHU
BIBI VARGHESE
SANDEEP.S.NAIR

Respondents

STATE OF KERALA
THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ADOOR POLICE STATION
JINU SAM
ARUN@VISHNU
SOORAJ
ANANTHU
SARATH
JITH.M.MADANAN @ JITHU
LOUIS GEORGE MATHEW
RADHAKRISHNAN

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv P.V.DILEEP

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor Sri Nooshad K.A.
• Adv K.V.Anil Kumar

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioners, accused Nos. 1 to 11 in Crime No.515/2018 of Adoor Police Station (now CP 29/2019 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adoor), have moved under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash all proceedings against them. The offences charged include sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 506(ii), 323, 324, 326, 427 and 307 read with section 149 IPC. The 3rd respondent is the de facto complainant; respondents 4 to 10 are injured witnesses. The petition contends that the dispute has been amicably resolved between the parties and continuing the proceedings serves no public interest. The State’s counsel counters that the offences are serious and public interest matters cannot be sacrificed. The court notes that affidavits (Annexures 2 to 9) establish a genuine settlement, and the defacto complainant and witnesses stand by their contents. Citing Gian Singh, Narinder Singh and Yogendra Yadav, the court recognises that amicable settlements can justify quashing in appropriate cases. The judge observes that the final report does not strictly bring within 307 IPC, and that counter cases have been quashed; the dispute appears to be politically motivated. Given the settled nature of the matter and lack of public interest, the court quashes all proceedings. The Crl.M.C. is allowed. Bechu Kurian Thomas, J.

Provisions of Law Cited

Cr.P.C. Section 482Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 506(ii), 323, 324, 326, 427, 307 r/w 149

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 10 SCC 303 — High Court can quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases on amicable settlement.
Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another (2014) 6 SCC 466 — reaffirmation of the settlement principle.
Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another (2014) 9 SCC 653 — reaffirmation of settlement principle.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners’ counsel submitted that the dispute was amicably resolved and there is no public interest in continued proceedings; hence, the High Court should exercise its inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the proceedings in Crime No.515/2018 (CP 29/2019). The petitions emphasize that continued prosecution would be futile and a settlement has been achieved with the injured witnesses and the de facto complainant supporting its genuineness. The quashing would serve public interest by ending a stale, politically influenced dispute and avoiding harassment of the accused.

Contentions of Respondents

The State and complainant’s counsel contended that the offences charged are serious and public interest must be weighed; quashing cannot be based solely on settlements where offences involve violence and trust in the process; affidavits should be scrutinised for authenticity, and the court should be cautious before quashing. The prosecution maintains that even if a settlement exists, the court must consider whether continuance serves the public interest and whether any offence falls under Section 307 IPC, which can affect justice.

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 principle that amicable settlements may justify quashing criminal proceedings under the High Court’s inherent powers (Section 482 Cr.P.C.).
Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another	(2014) 6 SCC 466	Positive	Affirms the settlement principle in quashing criminal proceedings when public interest is not involved.
Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another	(2014) 9 SCC 653	Positive	Reiterates the settlement-based quashing principle in similar circumstances.

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 Vishnu @ Pallak 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 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS FRIDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1944** **CRL.MC NO. 6626 OF 2022** **CRIME NO.515/2018 OF Adoor Police Station, Pathanamthitta CP 29/2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS , ADOOR PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED (1-11) :** |**1**|**VISHNU @ PALLAK,**| |---|---| ||**AGED 26 YEARS,**| ||**S/O MOHANAN, VISHNU BHAVANAM,**| ||**THUVAYOOR NORTH MURI, ANTHICHIRA,**| ||**MANAKKALA.P.O, ADOOR TALUK,**| ||**PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN – 691 551**| |**2**|**ASHOK KUMAR,**| ||**AGED 34 YEARS,**| ||**S/O MOHANAN, MOHANA VILASOM VEEDU,**| ||**THUVAYOOR NORTH MURI, ANTHICHIRA,**| ||**ERATHU VILLAGE, MANAKKALA.P.O,**| ||**ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,**| ||**PIN – 691 551**| |**3**|**RENJITH,**| ||**AGED 31 YEARS,**| ||**S/O RAVEENDRAN, AYANIVILAYIL VEEDU,**| ||**THUVAYOOR NORTH MURI, ANTHICHIRA,**| ||**ERATHU VILLAGE, MANAKKALA.P.O,**| ||**ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,**| ||**PIN – 691 551**| |**4**|**KRISHNAKUMAR@VISHNU,**| ||**AGED 28 YEARS,**| ||**S/O SIVAKUMAR, GOKULAM VEEDU,**| ||**THUVAYOOR NORTH MURI, ANTHICHIRA,**| ||**ERATHU VILLAGE, MANAKKALA.P.O,**| ||**ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,**| ||**PIN – 691 551**| |**5**|**SUMOD,**| ||**AGED 35 YEARS,**| ||**S/O SADASIVAN NAIR, SUMOD BHAVANAM,**| ||**NEAR PAZHAYAKAVU TEMPLE,**| **CRL.MC NO. 6626 OF 2022** 2 ||**MANNADI MUGHA MURI,**| |---|---| ||**KADAMPANAD VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK,**| ||**PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN – 691 530**| |**6**|**ANURAJ,**| ||**AGED 35 YEARS,**| ||**S/O SIVARAJAN, MADHAVA VILASAM,**| ||**THUVAYOOR NORTH MURI, ANTHICHIRA,**| ||**ERATHU VILLAGE, MANAKKALA.P.O,**| ||**ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,**| ||**PIN - 691551**| |**7**|**ANEESH,**| ||**AGED 32 YEARS,**| ||**S/O VISWAMBHARAN, ANEESH BHAVANAM VEEDU,**| ||**THUVAYOOR NORTH MURI, ANTHICHIRA,**| ||**ERATHU VILLAGE, MANAKKALA.P.O,**| ||**ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,**| ||**PIN – 691 551**| |**8**|**PREMJITH,**| ||**AGED 24 YEARS,**| ||**S/O PRASANNAN, AMPALATHIL VEEDU,**| ||**THUVAYOOR NORTH MURI, ANTHICHIRA,**| ||**ERATHU VILLAGE, MANAKKALA.P.O,**| ||**ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,**| ||**PIN – 691 551**| |**9**|**ANANTHU,**| ||**AGED 24 YEARS,**| ||**S/O SANTHOSH, KANJIRAMALAKKUZHIL VEEDU,**| ||**THUVAYOOR NORTH MURI, ERATHU VILLAGE,**| ||**MANAKKALA.P.O, ADOOR TALUK,**| ||**PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN – 691 551**| |**10**|**BIBI VARGHESE,**| ||**AGED 27 YEARS,**| ||**S/O VARGHESE DANIEL, BINI BHAVANAM,**| ||**MANNADI MUGHA MURI, KADAMPANAD VILLAGE,**| ||**ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,**| ||**PIN – 691 530**| |**11**|**SANDEEP.S.NAIR,**| ||**AGED 29 YEARS,**| ||**S/O SURENDRAN NAIR, KARAMPALAYIL VEEDU,**| ||**MANNADI MUGHA MURI, NEAR MUDIPPURA TEMPLE,**| ||**KADAMPANAD VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK,**| **CRL.MC NO. 6626 OF 2022** 3 **PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,** **PIN - 691530** **BY ADV P.V.DILEEP** ## **RESPONDENT/ STATE & COMPLAINANT :** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA,**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,**| ||**HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKUAM,**| ||**PIN - 682031**| |**2**|**THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,**| ||**ADOOR POLICE STATION, ADOOR.P.O.,**| ||**PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,**| ||**PIN – 691 523**| |**3**|**JINU SAM,**| ||**AGED 27 YEARS,**| ||**S/O SAMKUTTY, JINU VILLA HOUSE,**| ||**THUVAYOOR NORTH MURI, ERATHU MURI,**| ||**MANAKKALA.P.O, ADOOR TALUK,**| ||**PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN – 691 551**| |**4**|**ARUN@VISHNU,**| ||**AGED 28 YEARS,**| ||**S/O BALAN, VISHNU VILASAM,**| ||**THUVAYOOR NORTH MURI, ERATHU VILLAGE,**| ||**THUVAYOOR, MANAKKALA.P.O,**| ||**ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,**| ||**PIN – 691 551**| |**5**|**SOORAJ,**| ||**AGED 27 YEARS,**| ||**S/O SURESH, KRISHNA VILASAM,**| ||**THUVAYOOR NORTH MURI, NEDUMKUNNU,**| ||**ERATHU VILLAGE, THUVAYOOR,**| ||**MANAKKALA.P.O,**| ||**ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,**| ||**PIN – 691 551**| |**6**|**ANANTHU,**| ||**AGED 24 YEARS,**| ||**S/O JOHNSON, AJITH BHAVANAM,**| ||**THUVAYOOR NORTH MURI, CHITTANIMUKKU,**| **CRL.MC NO. 6626 OF 2022** 4 **ERATHU VILLAGE, THUVAYOOR, MANAKKALA.P.O, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 691551** |**7**|**SARATH,**| |---|---| ||**AGED 26 YEARS,**| ||**S/O NANU, VANIYAMKODU VEEDU,**| ||**THUVAYOOR NORTH MURI, ANTHICHIRA,**| ||**ERATHU VILLAGE, THUVAYOOR,**| ||**MANAKKALA.P.O, ADOOR TALUK,**| ||**PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN – 691 551**| |**8**|**JITH.M.MADANAN @ JITHU,**| ||**AGED 27 YEARS,**| ||**S/O MADANAN, KRISHNA VILASAM,**| ||**THUVAYOOR NORTH MURI, ANTHICHIRA,**| ||**ERATHU VILLAGE, THUVAYOOR,**| ||**MANAKKALA.P.O, ADOOR TALUK,**| ||**PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,**| ||**PIN – 691 551**| |**9**|**LOUIS GEORGE MATHEW,**| ||**AGED 27 YEARS,**| ||**S/O MATHEW GEORGE, PANAYARA LOUIS COTTAGE,**| ||**VELLAKKULANGARA MURI, ERATHU VILLAGE,**| ||**MANAKKALA.P.O, ADOOR TALUK,**| ||**PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN – 691 551**| |**10**|**RADHAKRISHNAN,**| ||**AGED 58 YEARS,**| ||**S/O RAGHAVAN, KOCHU NIRAKATHU VEEDU,**| ||**THUVAYOOR NORTH MURI, ANTHICHRA,**| ||**ERATHU VILLAGE, THUVAYOOR,**| ||**MANAKKALA.P.O, ADOOR TALUK,**| ||**PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,**| ||**PIN – 691 551**| **BY SRI.NOUSHAD K.A., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR BY ADV K.V.ANIL KUMAR** ## **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON** **10.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING :** **CRL.MC NO. 6626 OF 2022** 5 ## **BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. -------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.6626 of 2022 ---------------------------------** Dated this the 10[th] day of March, 2023 ## **ORDER** Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash all proceedings against them. 2. Petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 11 in Crime No.515/2018 of Adoor Police Station, now pending as C.P.No.29/2019 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Adoor, registered for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 506(ii), 323, 324, 326, 427 and 307 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3[rd] respondent is the defacto complainant and respondents 4 to 10 are the injured witnesses. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents, apart from the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the matter has been settled and hence the proceedings against the petitioners ought to be quashed. It was also submitted that, considering the nature of offences alleged, no purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings. ## 5. In **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another** [(2012) 10 SCC 303], the Apex Court has held that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the **CRL.MC NO. 6626 OF 2022** 6 victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. This view was reiterated in **Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another** [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and **Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another** [(2014) 9 SCC 653]. 6. I have perused Annexure 2 to Annexure 9 affidavits filed by respondents 3 to 10. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that upon verification, it is understood that the affidavits are genuine, and the defacto complainant and the other deponents stand by the contents thereof. I am satisfied that the matter has been settled and no public interest is involved in this case. There is no impediment for granting the prayer for quashing. The continuance of the proceedings will only be an exercise in futility. 7. Even though the offence under Section 307 IPC is incorporated, on a perusal of the final report produced as Annexure 1, it is seen that even the prosecution allegations itself will not come strictly come within the purview of Section 307. Further, the counter case in Crime No.528/2018 of Adoor Police Station has already been quashed and further that the dispute arose out of political rivalry. Taking note of the entire circumstances, I am satisfied that even if the prosecution allegations are proved, the offence under Section 307 IPC will not arise. 8. Sri.Noushad K.A., the learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the 5[th] accused is involved in two other crimes registered with the Enath Police Station while the 6[th] petitioner is involved in one crime before the **CRL.MC NO. 6626 OF 2022** 7 Adoor Police Station and the 11[th] petitioner is involved in three crimes, two of which are registered before the Adoor Police Station and one before the Enath Police Station. Even though petitioners 5, 6 and 11 are involved in other crimes, taking note of the peculiar circumstances in this case and also the settlement of the counter case, I am satisfied that no purpose would be achieved by continuing the prosecution. 9. Accordingly, all proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No.515/2018 of Adoor Police Station, now pending as C.P.No.29/2019 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Adoor are quashed. This Crl.M.C is allowed as above. Sd/- **BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE** RKM **CRL.MC NO. 6626 OF 2022** 8 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6626/2022** **PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES :** **Annexure-1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT/CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO. 515/ 2018 OF ADOOR POLICE STATION,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT** - **Annexure-2 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT** - **Annexure-3 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT** - **Annexure-4 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT** - **Annexure-5 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT** - **Annexure-6 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT** - **Annexure-7 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT** - **Annexure-8 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 9TH RESPONDENT** - **Annexure-9 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 10TH RESPONDENT** - **Annexure-10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT/INJURED ISSUED FROM THE GENERAL HOSPITAL ADOOR DATED 20.02.2018** - **Annexure 11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT/INJURED ISSUED FROM THE GENERAL HOSPITAL ADOOR DATED 20.02.2018** **CRL.MC NO. 6626 OF 2022** 9 **Annexure -12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT/INJURED ISSUED FROM THE GENERAL HOSPITAL ADOOR DATED 20.02.2018** **Annexure-13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE OF THE 8TH RESPONDENT/INJURED ISSUED FROM THE GENERAL HOSPITAL ADOOR DATED 20.02.2018 Annexure-14 THE TRUE COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE OF THE 9TH RESPONDENT/INJURED ISSUED FROM THE GENERAL HOSPITAL ADOOR DATED 20.02.2018 Annexure-15 THE TRUE COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE OF THE 10TH RESPONDENT/INJURED ISSUED FROM THE GENERAL HOSPITAL ADOOR DATED 20.02.2018**