Petitioner sought quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC based on a settlement with the de facto complainant. The court held the offence was personal and allowed the petition, quashing the proceedings to serve the ends of justice.
All further proceedings against the petitioner in S.C.No.311 of 2009 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 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2016/31ST JYAISHTA, 1938
Crl.MC.No. 3285 of 2016 ()
SC.NO. 311/2009 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, NEYYATTINKARA CRIME NO. 343/2008 OF NEMOM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
VISHNU AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. SATHEESH KUMAR, MUTHUVALLIMELEPUTHEN VEEDU, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PAPPANAMCODE, MANUKULADICHAMANGALAM, NEMAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.D.KISHORE SMT.MINI GOPINATH SMT.MEERA GOPINATH
SRI.R.MURALEEKRISHNAN (MALAKKARA)
RESPONDENTS/STATE, COMPLAINANT AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT :
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE NEMAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 001.
3. PRASANTH KUMAR S/O.VIJAYAKUMARAN NAIR, AYILYAM HOUSE, TC 51/718(2), ESTATE ROAD, PAPPANAMCODE, NEMAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 521.
R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V.S. SREEJITH R3 BY ADV. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Mn
...2/-
Crl.MC.No. 3285 of 2016 ()
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :
ANNEXURE I THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME 343/2008 OF NEMAM POLICE STATION PENDING AS SC 311/2009 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, NEYYATTINKARA.
ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 28-5-2016 EXECUTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE NOTARY PUBLIC.
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES : NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
Mn
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J
ORDER
1.The petitioner is the sole accused in S.C.No.311 of 2009 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Neyyattinkara. He has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') seeking to quash the proceedings on the ground that the matter has been settled with the de facto complainant.
Crl.M.C. No.3285 of 2016
-2-
4.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondents.
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, 3rd respondent has filed an affidavit in which he affirms in unmistakable terms his desire to erase the bitter incidents of the past and to start afresh.
6.The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits
that the petitioner is not a person with criminal antecedents.
7.I have given my anxious considerations to the submissions made across the bar and I have also gone
Crl.M.C. No.3285 of 2016
-3-
through the materials on record.
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.
9.I am of the considered opinion that this is one of those exceptional cases where prayer for invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction can be justifiably invoked to serve the ends of justice as the case falls within the matrix of guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab ( 2012 (4) KLT
Crl.M.C. No.3285 of 2016
-4-
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 petitioner in S.C.No.311 of 2009 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Court, Neyyattinkara shall stand quashed.
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V.,
JUDGE
kp/-22.6.16
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the maintenance of public peace would be subverted or impugned proceedings would serve the purpose of bringing justice.
Whether the matter has been settled with the de fa actor complainant under Section 482 CrPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab ( 2012 (4) KLT 108)Distinguished¶47
1 provisions across 1 enactments
VISHNU
STATE OF KERALA
THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE NEMAM
PRASANTH KUMAR
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
