Petitioners challenged criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashal of the FIR based on settlement. The High Court allowed the petition, holding the offence personal in nature and remote conviction likelihood.
Criminal proceedings in C.C.No.1660 of 2013 against petitioners stand 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
MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/30TH JYAISHTA, 1938
Crl.MC.No. 3048 of 2016 ()
CC.NO. 1660/2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -I,HOSDURG CRIME NO. 190/2013 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION , KASARGOD DISTRICT
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 4:
1. ANEESH K.V @ ITTAMAL ANEES, S/O. ASAINAR, AGED 23 YEARS, RESIDING AT KUNNUMMAL HOUSE, PEKKADAM, NORTH THRIKKARIPPUR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT
2. IRSHAD N @ MUHAMMED IRSHAD, S/O. ISMAYIL, RESIDING AT BATHAYIL HOUSE, UDINOOR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT
3. MUNEER M.,
4. MUHAMMED NIYAS T., AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL SATHAR, RESIDING AT NAZEEMA MANZIL,
BATHAYIL UDINOOR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT
BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM- 682 031
2. DEEPU K.P., AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. GOPALAN, RESIDING AT KUNHIPURAYIL HOUSE, UDINOOR THEKKUMPURAM, UDINOOR VILLAGE,HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT -671 321
2/-
-2-
CRL.MC.NO.3048/2016
3. PREASH P.P., AGED 32 YEARS,S/O. RAGHAVAN, RESIDING AT PUTHIYAPURAYIL HOUSE, UDINOOR THEKKUPURAM, UDINOOR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT -671 321
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SAREENA GEORGE R2 & R3 BY ADV. SMT.G.SANGEETHA
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
Crl.MC.No. 3048 of 2016 ()
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:
| ANNEX A1 | THE TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.190/2013 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION |
|---|---|
| ANNEX A2 | THE TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 190/2013 OF CHENDERA POLICE STATION |
| ANNEX A3 | THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 12-05-2016 SWORN IN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT |
| ANNEX A4 | THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 12-05-2016 SWORN IN BY TE 3RD RESPONDENT |
| ANNEX A5 | THE TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE MEMO OF EVIDENCE IN CRIME NO.190/2013 OF CHENDERA POLICE STATION |
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL -----------------------------------------------
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
sts
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J
Crl.M.C. No. 3048 of 2016
ORDER
Crl.M.C. No.3048 of 2016 -2-
and was assaulted with a stick.
4.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, respondents 2 and 3 and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5.It is submitted that during the pendency of the proceedings, the rival parties have decided to give a quietus to all their subsisting disputes. After much deliberations amongst themselves and at the interventions of persons who are respected by both parties, they have decided to bury the past and turn a new leaf. There is no acrimony between the parties at present and they are living in peace and harmony. To bring on record the settlement, respondents have filed separate affidavits in which they affirm in unmistakable terms their decision to erase the bitter incidents of the past and to start afresh.
6.The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that the petitioners are not persons with criminal antecedents.
Crl.M.C. No.3048 of 2016 -3-
8.It appears that the offence is entirely personal in nature and do not affect public peace or tranquility. It is also felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace. In a case such as the instant one, even if the prosecution is allowed to continue, it would not serve any purpose as the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. It can only result in putting the de facto complainant and the accused to unwanted oppression and prejudice. Settlement will augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony.
Crl.M.C. No.3048 of 2016 -4-
within the matrix of guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab ( 2012 (4) KLT 108) and Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr. (2014) 6 SCC 466) and other cases.
In the result, this petition is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.1660 of 2013 on the files of hte Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class - I, Hosdurg, shall stand quashed.
Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V.,
JUDGE
kp/-20.6.16
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC given the settlement between parties in a personal offence.
Whether the exceptional circumstances justify invoking inherent jurisdiction to serve the ends of justice.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of PunjabExplained¶53
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr.Explained¶53
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr.
N/AReferred
Sections 341, 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC
1 provisions across 1 enactments
ANEESH K.V
IRSHAD N
MUNEER M.
M. DEEPU K.P.
PREASH P.P.
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
