The Kerala High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the accused, who was a sole accused in an IPC offense, upon finding that the dispute between the parties had been amicably settled voluntarily and that continuing proceedings would be an abuse of process of law.
Petition allowed. All further proceedings in C.C.No.405/2013 against the petitioner stood quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/19TH JYAISHTA, 1938
Crl.MC.No. 2196 of 2016 ()
CC.NO. 405/2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTARTE COURT, VADAKARA CRIME NO. 462/2012 OF CHOMBALA POLICE STATION , KOZHIKODE DISTRICT
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SHAMSUDDIN, S/O. ABDUL KADAR,AGED 33 YEARS, HALEEMAS HOUSE, CHOMBALA P.O, VATAKARA THALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.P.S.BINU
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
1. SHOUKKATH, S/O. IBRAHIM, AGED 43 YEARS, MEETHALE KOROTH HOUSE, MADAPPALLI COLLEGE P.O, VATAKARA THALUK, PIN -673 101
2. STATE OF KERALA,
R1 BY ADV. SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
Crl.MC.No. 2196 of 2016 ()
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:
ANNEX A1 TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NUMBER 462/2012 OF CHOMBALA POLICE
ANNEX A2 SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF 1ST RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:
NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
sts
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.2196 of 2016
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 09th June, 2016
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.2196 of 2016 : 2 :
In Annexure A2, it is asserted that the parties have resolved all their pending disputes and are living peacefully.
6.It is submitted by the learned counsel that in respect of an incident which took place on 14.05.2011, a crime has been registered against the 1st respondent as Crime No.531/2011 by the Vatakara police. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's sister was having an affair with the 1st respondent and this resulted in a dispute. Later, the matter was amicably resolved and now the parties are living in a harmonious manner.
Crl.M.C.2196 of 2016
: 3 :
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 . 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.2196 of 2016
: 4 :
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.
Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. Judge
Bb
[True copy]
P.A to Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings can be quashed under S.482 Cr.P.C. upon amicable settlement of disputes between parties.
Whether the principle of quashing proceedings applies when offenses involve grievous hurt and trespass.
Whether the settlement was voluntary and genuine without coercion.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of PunjabRelied on¶44
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Narinder Singh v. State of PunjabRelied on¶44
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab. (2014) 6 SCC 466 · Who else cites this
Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and AnotherRelied on¶44
Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another 2014 (9) SCC 653 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SHAMSUDDIN
SHOUKKATH
STATE OF KERALA
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
