High Court considered a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings for an assault dispute where parties had reached a settlement. Court held quashing appropriate to secure ends of justice and prevent waste of time.
Final report and all proceedings against petitioners in S.C.No. 505 of 2011 are 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 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/23RD KARTHIKA, 1938
Crl.MC.No. 5173 of 2016 ()
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 505/2011 of I ADDL.ASST.SESSIONS COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CRIME NO. 286/2010 OF KARAMANA POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONERS/A1 TO A3:
1. RAKESH S/O.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, AGE 20/10, TC 54/1718, TUMARI MUTTATH MELE PUTHEN VEEDU, MELAMCODE WARD, NEMOM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. VISHNU
S/O.REGHUVARAN NAIR, AGE 20/10, TC 55/2415, KIZHEKKEVILA, PAPPANAMCODE WARD, NEMOM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3. SREELAL
S/O.ANILKUMAR, AGE 20/10, THULAVILA AMBAZHAKKAL VEEDU, ESTATE WARD, NEMOM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR
SRI. STEJO SRI.V.S.THOSHIN SRI.E.A.HARIS
RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANTS
1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARAMANA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031
2. SREEJITH, S/O SREEKANTHAN, AGE 23/10 TC 55/2384 PAPPANAMCODE WARD, KIZHEKKEVIAL, NEMOM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.R.RAJAISH BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-112016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 5173 of 2016 ()
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)'ANNEXURES
----------------------ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE POLICE CHARGE IN SC NO.505/11. ANNEXURE B COMPROMISE AFFIDAVIT.
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES
NIL
/TRUE COPY/
VPS PS TO JUDGE
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J
----------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.5173 of 2016
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of November, 2016
O R D E R
Crl.M.C.5173/2016
2
6.The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions has expressed his reservations in the matter of quashing the proceedings on the basis of settlement. It is submitted that the invocation of powers under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is not warranted. However, it is submitted that no other cases are reported against the petitioners.
Apex Court has laid down that in appropriate cases, the
Crl.M.C.5173/2016
3
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.”
9.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:
XXXXXXXXXXXX
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
Crl.M.C.5173/2016
4
(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
Crl.M.C.5173/2016 5
In the result, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A
final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against
the petitioners in S.C.No. 505 of 2011 on the file of the
Ist Additional Assistant Sessions Judge,
Thiruvananthapuram are quashed.
Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE
vps
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC after amicable resolution to secure ends of justice and prevent abuse of process.
Whether the offence committed by petitioners is grave enough to preclude quashing of proceedings due to settlement.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of PunjabReferred¶43
Gian singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Narinder Singh v. State of PunjabReferred¶49
Narinder singh v. State of Punjab. (2014) 6 SCC 466 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
RAKESH S/O.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
VISHNU S/O.REGHUVARAN NAIR
SREELAL S/O.ANILKUMAR
THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARAMANA POLICE STATION
SREEJITH S/O SREEKANTHAN
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
