Coram quashed criminal proceedings against accused persons on Section 482 CrPC ground of a genuine voluntary settlement between them and the de-facto complainant, citing precedent that such resolution prevents abuse of process in private offences.
Civil misc. petition allowed and final report along with all further proceedings in C.C.No.1420 of 2013 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
WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MAY 2016/4TH JYAISHTA, 1938
Crl.MC.No. 2332 of 2016 ()
--------------------------CC.NO. 1420/2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -I, PATHANAMTHITTA
CRIME NO. 1096/2012 OF ARANMULA POLICE STATION,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :
1. EBI ALPHONSE, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.ALPHONSE, MOLOOR HOUSE, KURIYANOOR MURI, THOTTAPPUZHASSERY VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 643.
2. VISHNU, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.PRASAD, JISHNU VILASAM HOUSE, THAZHAM MURI, MALAYALAPPUZHA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
3. RAHUL, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.RADHAKRISHNAN, VADAKKATHARA HOUSE, PULLADU MURI, KOIPRAM VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
4. PRAVEEN, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.SASIDHARAN, MEPRATHUKALAYIL, KANJIRAMKARA MURI, AYIROOR VILLEGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.AJEESH K.SASI
RESPONDENT(S)/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE :
1. RENJITH JOHN MAMMEN, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.JOSE MATHEW, POOTHIYODU HOUSE, VANMAZHI MURI, PANDANADU VILLAGE, CHENGANOOR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-689 121
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.UNNI SEBASTIAN KAPPEN R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SAREENA GEORGE
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
Crl.MC.No. 2332 of 2016 ()
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:
ANNEX A1. CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.1096/2012 OF ARANMULA POLICE STATION.
ANNEX A2 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT (CW1)/ 1ST RESPONDENT SIGNIFYING THE FACTUM OF SETTLEMENT COMPOSITION OF THE DISPUTES WITH THE PETITIONERS.
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:
NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
sts
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”). The criminal proceedings against the petitioners are sought to be quashed on the ground of settlement arrived at between the petitioners as well as the de-facto complainant.
Crl.M.C. No.2332 of 2016
-2-
harmony. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners as well as the first respondent were students of St. Thomas College, Kozhencherry and the incident which happened on 4.12.2012 was due to minor difference of opinion between the parties. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has entered appearance and relying on Annexure B affidavit sworn to by the first respondent submitted that the matter has been amicably resolved and he does not intend to prosecute the petitioners any further.
Crl.M.C. No.2332 of 2016 -3-
by their own 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 .
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.2332 of 2016 -4-
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 personal 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.2332 of 2016 -5-
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 petition is allowed and Annexure A final report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.1420 of 2013 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Pathanamthitta, shall stand quashed.
Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE
kp/-25.5.16
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioners can be quashed on the ground of a settlement arrived between the petitioners and the de-facto complainant.
Whether the settlement of disputes between parties is voluntary and genuine to warrant quashing of the criminal case.
Whether the continuation of criminal proceedings despite settlement amounts to abuse of the process of court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian SinghRelied on¶6
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012 (10) SCC 303) · Who else cites this
Narinder SinghRelied on¶6
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014 (6) SCC 466) · Who else cites this
Yogendra YadavRelied on¶6
Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another (2014 (9) SCC 653) · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ebi Alphonse
Vishnu
Rahul
Praveen
Renjith John Mammen
State of Kerala
Raja Vijayaraghavan V
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
