Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed (FIR and all proceedings in CC 66/2014 ...

Vivek and others v. Louis, Rahul and State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C. No. 2915 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date
2016-05-23
Court Decision / Holding
Consequently, the impugned FIR which is Annexure 1 final report and all further proceedings in CC. No. 66 of 2014 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court Ernakulam shall stand quashed.
Final Disposition
Quashed (FIR and all proceedings in CC 66/2014 quashed)

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Vivek
  • Vyshak
  • Arun
  • Raykad
  • Anoopkumar
  • Hari

Respondents

  • Louis
  • Rahul
  • State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri. Geo Paul
  • • Sri. Sanu Mathew
  • • Sri. Radhika Rajasekharan P.
  • • Sri. C.R. Pramod
  • • Sri. S. Ashok Kumar

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri. Lenin P. Sukumaran
  • • Sri. Rajesh Vijayan (Public Prosecutor)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous petition under section 482 CrPC seeking to quash the criminal proceedings arising from FIR No. 57/2014 registered at Central Police Station, Ernakulam, and the connected case CC No. 66/2014 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. The petitioners, six accused persons, faced allegations under IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 323 and 324 read with Section 149. After investigation, the final report led to the filing of CC 66/2014. During pendency, the parties resolved their disputes through a compromise, with the de facto complainant (first respondent) and second respondent (injured witness) swearing affidavits stating there is no grievance and that they do not intend to pursue prosecution. The State indicated no objection to acting on these affidavits. The court recalled the broad principle that while CrPC 482 grants wide inherent power to prevent abuse of process and to secure ends of justice, quashing is appropriate in cases where the dispute is private in nature and resolved by the parties, subject to limits for heinous or public-interest offenses. Relying on Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, and Yogendra Yadav, the court held that continued proceedings would be oppressive and contrary to justice. Consequently, the FIR, final report, and all further proceedings in CC 66/2014 were quashed to restore peace and harmony.

Provisions of Law Cited

CrPC Section 482Indian Penal Code: Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 read with Section 149

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Ends of justice
  • Abuse of process of court
  • Inherent powers of the High Court under CrPC 482 are of wide plenitude
  • Compromise/settlement between victim and offender can justify quashing of criminal proceedings in appropriate private cases

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants submit that the disputes have been amicably settled to restore peace and harmony. Affidavits from the injured witness and the first respondent state there is no grievance and no intention to pursue prosecution. The State has no objection to acting on Annexures A2 and A3, and the petitioners have no criminal antecedents. Relying on Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, and Yogendra Yadav, they contend that where the dispute is private and resolved by the parties, continuing criminal proceedings would be oppressive and a misuse of process; quashing is appropriate in the ends-of-justice framework.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents (State) do not oppose the quashing; the Public Prosecutor indicates no objection to the consideration of the affidavits, given the absence of ongoing grievance and the amicable settlement between parties.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab(2012) 10 SCC 303PositiveCited to support that High Courts can quash private-dishuff disputes when there is an amicable settlement and ends of justice demand closure.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab(2014) 6 SCC 466PositiveReinforces the principle that compounding/settlement can justify quashing in appropriate cases.
Yogendra Yadav and Others v State of Jharkhand and Another(2014) 9 SCC 653PositiveAffirms the approach of allowing quashing where the dispute is resolved and public interest is not prejudiced.

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 Vivek and others v. Louis, Rahul and 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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2016/2ND JYAISHTA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 2915 of 2016 () ---------------------------** **CC 66/2014 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM. CRIME NO. 57/2014 OF CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. ..........** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 6:** - **---------------------------------** - **1.VIVEK, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.VIJAYAN, MALAYATH HOUSE, MANALODY, NILAMBOOR PO, MALAPPURAM.** - **2.VYSHAK, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.DEVARAJAN, VYSHAKAM HOUSE, CHALIMUKKU, KOLLAY PO, PERINGAMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **3. ARUN, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.JOHN, PUNNATHANATHU HOUSE, KADAKU PZHARIKANDAM, KANJIKUZHI THODUPUZHA.** - **4.RAYKAD, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.GEORGE, KURUNNAPILLIL HOUSE,THATTEKADU, PALAMATTAM, KOTHAMANGALAM** - **5.ANOOPKUMAR, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.SANKARAN, MUTHUPALAKKAL HOUSE, MOTHODI, KUPPAKANDAM, NEDIYAMATTAM,** - **THODUPUZHA.** **6. HARI, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.SHAJAN, KALASAGAR HOUSE, KEZHUMURI HOUSE, RAMAMANGALAM, KOTHAMANGALAM** **BY ADVS.SRI.GEO PAUL SRI.SANU MATHEW SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P. SRI.C.R.PRAMOD SRI.S.ASHOK KUMAR.** **--2--** **--2--** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2915 of 2016 ()** ## **--------------------------** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE:** **------------------------------------------** **1.LOUIS, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.ANTONY, ARAKKAL HOUSE, PUTHUVYPPU PO, PUTHUVYPPU, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682508 .** **2.RAHUL, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.SADANANDAN, EDACHANPPADATHU HOUSE, VYTTILA PO, POONITHURA VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM - 682019.** **3.STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSEPCTOR, CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM, BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** **R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.LENIN P. SUKUMARAN R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **mbr/** **Crl.MC.No. 2915 of 2016 () --------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES: ------------------------** |**ANNEXURE A1 :**|**CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN**| |---|---| ||**CC.NO. 66/2014 OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,**| ||**COURT, ERNAKULAM.**| |**ANNEXURE A2 :**|**AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.**| |**ANNEXURE A3 :**|**AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.**| |**RESPONDENT(S)'**|**ANNEXURES:**<br>**NIL**| |**------------------------**|| ## **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **mbr/** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 2915 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 23[rd] May, 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **ORDER** This application is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) seeking invocation of powers of this Court to quash pending Criminal Proceedings as C.C.No.66 of 2014 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam. 2. Crime No.57 of 2014 of Central Police Station, Ernakulam was registered on 10.1.2014 at the instance of first respondent herein against the petitioners herein alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323 and 324 read with Section 149 of the IPC. 3. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the final police report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam and the case was taken on file as C.C.No.66 of 2014. During the pendency of the criminal case, parties have decided to resolve the disputes and to Crl.M.C. No.2915 of 2016 -2- live in harmony. Having compromised the matter, the petitioners/accused have preferred the present petition, to quash the impugned FIR and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Section 482 of the Code 4. It is submitted that the disputes have been amicably settled with the avowed objective to maintain peace and harmony between the parties. The second respondent is the injured witness and both first and second respondents have sworn to separate affidavits before court wherein it has been emphatically stated that their grievance do not exist anymore and also that they do not intend to pursue the prosecution proceedings against the petitioners herein. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor was directed to obtain instructions from the Investigating officer and it is submitted that the State has no objection in acting on Annexures A2 and A3 as it would promote peace and harmony. It is also Crl.M.C. No.2915 of 2016 -3- submitted that the petitioners are not persons with any criminal antecedents. 6. It is thus borne out from the submissions made at the bar that the parties have amicably settled their disputes with their free will and without any kind of pressure, influence or coercion. The compromise, it is felt, is voluntarily and genuine and can be acted upon. The law with regard to the settlement of criminal disputes on the strength of an amicable resolution of the disputes between the parties is no more res integra. ## 7. **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 .** Crl.M.C. No.2915 of 2016 -4- 8. It was held that the inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. It was held that certain categories of cases involving heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute as those offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. But those cases where the wrong is basically private or personnel in nature and those in which the parties have resolved their entire dispute could fittingly be quashed by this court taking into account the compromise between the offender and victim. In such cases the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused and the _de facto_ complainant to great oppression and prejudice. Crl.M.C. No.2915 of 2016 -5- 9. After having anxiously considered the submissions it is felt that it would be unfair and contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding. It would only tantamount to abuse of process of law to subject the parties to the ordeal of a protracted criminal proceeding despite the settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer. Settlement will augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony. Consequently, the impugned FIR which is Annexure 1 final report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.66 of 2014 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court Ernakulam shall stand quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE** kp/-23.5.16