High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-12-07Petition allowed; FIR and proceedings against r...

Vishnulal v. The State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No. 7439 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date: 2016-12-07
Court Decision / Holding: Quashed the FIR No. 3734/2016 and all proceedings against respondents 3 to 7 (Gokul, Adarsh, Rajeev, Amalesh, Akhilesh) under Section 482 CrPC; petition allowed. The State and SI remain as respondents but the quashing order applies specifically to accused 3-7; Annexure A1 and related proceedings are quashed.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; FIR and proceedings against respondents 3 to 7 quashed under Section 482 CrPC; State and SI not quashed in this order.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Vishnulal

Respondents

The State of Kerala
Sub Inspector of Police, Karunagappally Police Station
Gokul
Adarsh
Rajeev
Amalesh
Akhilesh

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. M.R. Sasith

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Amjad Ali (Public Prosecutor)
• Sri. V. Vinar

Case Synopsis & Summary

Vishnulal, the de facto complainant and victim, approached the Kerala High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash Crime No. 3734/2016 registered at Karunagappally Police Station. The FIR, dated 11 October 2016, named seven accused (Gokul, Adarsh, Rajeev, Amalesh, Akhilesh, with the State and the Sub-Inspector of Karunagappally Police Station as respondents). The offences alleged under IPC include unlawful assembly, rioting, wrongful restraint, hurt, and criminal intimidation under sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 294, 323, 324, 506 read with 149. The petitioner contends that the dispute with the accused is personal and has been amicably resolved, supported by an affidavit; he argues the settlement would not affect public peace and would promote peace and harmony. The Public Prosecutor, while noting no other cases against the respondents, resists quashing, suggesting that invoking 482 in such cases is unwarranted. The High Court cites Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, recognizing that in appropriate circumstances, amicable settlements may justify quashing to serve ends of justice and prevent abuse of process. On considering the circumstances, the court finds the alleged offences not grave and that continuation would be a waste of time, and thus allows the petition, quashing the FIR and all proceedings against respondents 3 to 7. The State and SI are not quashed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 294, 323, 324, 506 and 149

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ends of justice
Abuse of process of law
Amicable settlement / compromise between victim and wrongdoer as basis to quash criminal proceedings (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab; Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner submits that the dispute with the accused is purely personal and has been amicably resolved, as evidenced by the accompanying affidavit. It is urged that the dispute would not affect public peace or tranquility, and quashing would promote peace and harmony. Relying on Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, the petitioner contends that the High Court can exercise its inherent powers to terminate proceedings in the interests of ends of justice when a settlement exists and the offences are not grave. The petition prays for quashing the FIR and all proceedings against accused 3-7 under Section 482 CrPC.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor states reservations about quashing on the basis of settlement, contending that invocation of Section 482 in such circumstances is unwarranted, though no other cases are reported against the respondents. Counsel for accused 3-7 submits that the settlement should be considered in light of ends of justice and that continued prosecution would amount to abuse of process; nonetheless, opposing the breadth of quashing, the State argues for a cautious approach.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 (10) SCC 303	Positive	Apex Court held that High Courts can quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases where there is an amicable settlement between the victim and the wrongdoer and it serves ends of justice.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab	2014 (6) SCC 466	Positive	Court reiterated that when parties settle, the guiding factors are ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process; supports quashing in suitable 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 Vishnulal v. The 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** **WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 7439 of 2016 -------------------------** **CRIME NO. 3734/2016 OF KARUNAGAPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM** **....** ## **PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/VICTIM:** **--------------------------------------** ## **VISHNULAL,** **AGED 20 YEARS, S/O. RAJEEVAN, THOPPIL KIZHAKKATHIL, THAZHAVA THEKKUMMURI, THAZHAVA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM.** **BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH** **RESPONDENTS/1 TO 5 ACCUSED:** **---------------------------** **1. THE STATE OF KERALA,** - **REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031.** **2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE** - **KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM.** **3. GOKUL,** - **AGED 18 YEARS, S/O. SURENDRAN, KINARUVILAYIL, THAZHAVA THEKKUMURI, THAZHAVA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY.** **4. ADARSH,** - **AGED 18 YEARS, S/O. ARJUNAN, SARASWATHY BHAVANAM, THAZHAVA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY.** **5. RAJEEV,** - **AGED 19 YEARS, S/O. RAJAPPAN, KOTTARTHINVILA, THAZHAVA THEKKUMURI, THAZHAVA VILLAGE.** **msv/** **-2-** **-2-** ## **Crl.MC.No. 7439 of 2016** ## **-----------------------** **6. AMALESH, AGED 18 YEARS,** - **S/O. GANESHAN, VISHNUMANGALAM, THAZHAVA VILLAGE, THAZHAVA, KARUNAGAPPALLY.** ## **7. AKHILESH,** - **AGED 18, S/O. GANESHAN, VISHNUMANGALAM, THAZHAVA THEKKUMURI, THAZHAVA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY.** **R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI R3-R7 BY ADV. SRI.V.VINAR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **msv/** **Crl.MC.No. 7439 of 2016 ------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES -------------------------** **ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.3734/2016 OF KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURE** **-----------------------** **NIL** **//TRUE COPY// P.S.TO JUDGE** **msv/** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.7439 of 2016 ----------------------------------------Dated this the 7[th] day of December, 2016** ## **O R D E R** - 1.This petition is filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) with a prayer to invoke the extraordinary inherent powers and to quash the pending criminal proceedings. - 2.The petitioner is the de facto complainant in Crime No.3734 of 2016 of the Karunagappally Police Station. In the aforesaid crime, the respondents 3 to 7 are the accused. The said crime has been registered for offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 294, 323, 324, 506 and 149 of the IPC. - 3.The prosecution allegation is that on 11.10.2016 the respondents 3 to 7 wrongfully restrained the petitioner herein and thereafter assaulted him causing injuries. Crl.M.C.7439/2016 2 ## 4.Heard the submissions advanced. - 5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. Attention of this Court is invited to the affidavit filed by him to buttress his submission. It is urged that the dispute is purely personal in nature and would not affect public peace or tranquility. Summing up it is prayed that the criminal proceedings be terminated to promote peace and harmony. - 6.The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions has expressed his reservations in the matter of quashing the proceedings on the basis of settlement. It is submitted that the invocation of powers under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is not warranted. However, it is submitted that no other cases are reported against the respondents. - 7.I have considered the submissions . - 8.In **Gian singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303** Crl.M.C.7439/2016 3 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. It was observed as follows : _“61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”_ 9.The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court ## in **Narinder singh v. State of Punjab. (2014) 6 SCC** **466,** the pertinent observations which are as under: _XXXXXXXXXXXX_ _29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:_ Crl.M.C.7439/2016 4 _(i) ends of justice, or_ _(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives._ _xxxxxxx_ _xxxxxxx_ 10.The offence committed by the party respondents 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. It is felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and secure the ends of justice. Even otherwise, persisting with the prosecution would be nothing but a waste of time as the prospects of conviction would be bleak. 11.Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court will be well justified in invoking its extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings. In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure- Crl.M.C.7439/2016 5 A1 FIR in Crime No.3734 of 2016 of Karunagappally Police Station and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the respondents 3 to 7 are quashed. **Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE** vps