High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition to quash Section 482 CrPC proceedings. The court held that since the case was personal in nature with a valid settlement, quashing was justified under Gian Singh guidelines to restore harmony.
The impugned proceedings in S.C.No.200 of 2013 against petitioners accused No 1 to 12 shall 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
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2016/14TH ASHADHA, 1938
Crl.MC.No. 3163 of 2016 ()
--------------------------SC NO. 200/2013 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT-I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CRIME NO. 638/2011 OF MUSEUM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED A1 TO A12 :
1.
2. EVANGALIST SAMUEL S/O. SAMUEL, AGE 50, MEMANKARA VEEDU, UNDANKODE, ELLUVIDA, CHERIYAKOLLA WARD, KUNNATHUKAL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT (A2)
3.
RUSSALYAN
4.
YESUDAS
5.
6. LIVINGSKUMAR
7.
...2/-
Crl.MC.No. 3163 of 2016 () -2-
8. VIZHAVOOR JOHNY S/O. RAJAPPAN, AGE 35/11, JOHNY BHAVAN, VIZHAVOOR, MALAYAM, VILAVOORKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT (A8)
9. BINO RAJ S/O. A.V.NANDAKUMAR, AGE 35/11, ANAND BHAVAN, NORTH OF GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, NEYYATTINKARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT (A9).
10. KODIKUNNIL JAYAN S/O. GEORGE, AGE 42/11, PANTHALAKODE, KODIKUNNIL VEEDU, VEMBAYAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT (A10).
11. HARRIS
12. SANU S/O. VARGHESE, AGE 30/11, SABU BHAVAN, ARYANAD, CHANGA, VELLANADU VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT (A12).
BY ADV. SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR
RESPONDENT(S) :
1. THE STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUSEUM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2. SARATH KRISHNAN S/O. SASIDHARAN NAIR, AGE 27/11, HARIPRASADAM VEEDU, KUNNATTUKONAM WARD, NAGAROOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT (CW1)
3. SASIKUMAR @ AYYAPPAN S/O. BHASKARAN NAIR, AGE 45/11, AKHILAM VEEDU, TC8/646(6), KAKKOTTUKONAM, THIRUMALA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT (CW2)
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. DHANESH MATHEW R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Mn
...3/-
Crl.MC.No. 3163 of 2016 ()
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :
ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE POLICE CHARGE IN S.C.200/13. ANNEXURE B AFFIDAVIT OF RESPONDENT NO.2. ANNEXURE C AFFIDAVIT OF RESPONDENT NO.3
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES : NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
Mn
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J
Crl.M.C. No. 3163 of 2016
ORDER
1.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 to 12 in S.C.No.200 of 2013 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Judge-I, Thiruvananthapuram. The aforesaid case has arisen from Crime No.638 of 2011 of Museum Police Station registered at the instance of the 2nd respondent herein alleging offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 506(1), 427, 395 and 201 of the IPC read with Section 43(i) and Section 66 of the IT Act, 2000.
2.This petition is preferred under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) banking on the ratio of the Judgment rendered by the Three – Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab ( 2012 (4) KLT 108) and a series of other cases which include Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr. (2014) 6 SCC 466) and
Crl.M.C. No.3163 of 2016
-2-
Yogendra Yadav and others V State of Jharkhand (2014 (9) SCC 653) with a prayer to quash the proceedings. The sole ground is that the Apex Court in the above judgments have delineated the circumstances and the cases in which inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code can be invoked de hors section 320 of the Code for recognizing out of court settlement for the purpose of quashing criminal proceedings.
Crl.M.C. No.3163 of 2016 -3-
measure. To bring on record the settlement, the respondents have filed separate affidavits wherein they state in unequivocal terms that they have amicably resolved their disputes and reiterates that they have no objection in terminating the proceedings.
Crl.M.C. No.3163 of 2016
-4-
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.
8.I am of the view that this Court is well justified in quashing the impugned proceedings as the instant case falls within the matrix of guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Gian Singh (Supra) and the other cases referred to above.
In the result, this petition is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners, who are accused No 1 to 12 , in S.C.No.200 of 2013 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Judge-I, Thiruvananthapuram shall stand quashed.
Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE
kp/-7.7.16
3 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings can be quashed under inherent powers of Section 482 CrPC notwithstanding报案 is not cognizable under Section 320 CrPC.
Whether the settlement between parties and absence of acrimony justifies quashing of proceedings which impinge on public peace negligibly.
Whether the possibility of conviction being remote justifies quashing of criminal proceedings in the interest of the community.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of PunjabRelied on¶58
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab ( 2012 (4) KLT 108)
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr.Referred¶58
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr. (2014) 6 SCC 466 · Who else cites this
Yogendra Yadav and others v. State of JharkhandReferred¶58
Yogendra Yadav and others V State of Jharkhand (2014 (9) SCC 653) · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
EDWIN AND OTHERS
THE STATE OF KERALA
SARATH KRISHNAN
SASIKUMAR
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
