High Court allowed criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashment of FIR under Section 482 CrPC. Court held dispute was personal, amicably settled, and continuing proceedings would be futile waste of time, invoking inherent powers.
Criminal proceedings against petitioners in Crime No.1/2013 at Additional District and Sessions Court 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
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MAY 2016/27TH VAISAKHA, 1938
Crl.MC.No. 2502 of 2016
SC 423/2014 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT - I, KASARAGOD
CRIME NO. 1/2013 OF VIDYA NAGAR POLICE STATION, KASARGOD
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1-3, 5 & 6 :
1. RATHEESH C.,
2. SHIMOD B.K., AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. DANIDHARAN, RESIDING AT VAYALAMKUZHI HOUSE, PERUMBOLA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
3. RATHEESH P.,
4. VINODKUMAR C.K.,
5. ARUNKUMAR K. @ ANNU,
BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN
msv/
-2-
-2-
Crl.MC.No. 2502 of 2016
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE/COMPLAINANT:
1. STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VIDYANAGAR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
2. ABDUL KHAYUM K.A., AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. AHAMMED, RESIDING AT KADAVATH MAHAL, KOYILADUKKAM, PERUMBOLA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671 125.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.P.SAREENA GEORGE R2 BY ADV. SMT.C.B.SUMA DEVI
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
msv/
Crl.MC.No. 2502 of 2016
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE I COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.1/2013 DTD.28.1.2013 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KASARAGOD.
ANNEXURE II COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:
------------------------
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE
Msv/
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.
Crl.M.C.No.2502 of 2016
Dated this the 17th day of May, 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 to invoke the extraordinary inherent powers
under S.482 of the Cr.P.C. and to quash the pending criminal proceedings.
3.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent
Crl.M.C.No.2502 of 2016 : 2 :
submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. It is urged that Annexure II affidavit speaks in unmistakable terms that the 2nd respondent does not wish that the criminal proceedings initiated as against the petitioners should continue. According to the learned counsel, the dispute is purely personal in nature and therefore, would not affect public peace or tranquility and prays that the criminal proceedings be terminated to promote harmony.
Crl.M.C.No.2502 of 2016 : 3 :
pronouncements of this Court as well as the Apex Court.
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. 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.”
8.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:
“29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would
Crl.M.C.No.2502 of 2016 : 4 :
be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:
29.1 Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code.No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
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:
(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
9.It is by now settled that when the High Court is convinced
that the offences are entirely personal in nature and do not affect public peace or tranquility and when it is felt
Crl.M.C.No.2502 of 2016 : 5 :
that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and secure the ends of justice, the inherent powers under Section 482 can very well be exercised to quash the criminal proceedings. In such cases persisting with the prosecution would be nothing but a waste of time as the prospects of conviction would be bleak.
affidavit of respondent No.2 and the fact that the misunderstanding, which led to registration of the FIR in question, now stands cleared between the parties, I find that continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility. It is also felt that the quashing of the proceedings would bring about peace
Crl.M.C.No.2502 of 2016 : 6 :
and secure ends of justice. No purpose will be served in subjecting the parties to the ordeal of a criminal trial. It will only enure to waste valuable judicial hours. I am therefore of the view that the criminal proceedings pending as against the petitioners can be quashed by invoking the inherent powers of this Court under S.482 of the Code.
12.In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in S.C.No.423/2014 of the Additional District and Sessions Judge-1, Kasaragod in Crime No.1/2013 of Vidyanagar police station shall stand quashed.
Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE.
Bb
[True copy]
P.A to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC upon amicable settlement between parties in a personal dispute.
Whether the dispute is purely personal in nature enough to warrant termination of criminal proceedings to promote harmony.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of PunjabReferred¶55
Gian singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Narinder Singh v. State of PunjabReferred¶58
Narinder singh v. State of Punjab. (2014) 6 SCC 466 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ratheesh C.
Shimod B.K.
Ratheesh P.
Vinodkumar C.K.
Arunkumar K. @ Annu
State of Kerala
Raja Vijayaraghavan V
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Parties & counsel
