Permitting quashing of criminal proceedings initiated under various IPC sections and Arms Act upon a finding that the dispute between the accused (RSS) and the complainant (CPM activist) was settled amicably, rendering further trial unnecessary.
The impugned FIR and all further proceedings arising therefrom against the accused were 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 ALEXANDER THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 14TH JYAISHTA, 1941
Crl.MC.No. 2046 of 2019
CRIME NO. 2360/2018 OF Adoor Police Station , Pathanamthitta
PETITIONERS:
1 PRANAV AGED 20 YEARS S/O. PRADEEP, KRISHNANIKUNJAM PAZHAKULAM P.O., ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 691 554.
2 SOORAJ AGED 25 YEARS S/O. SANTHAKUMARI, NIRMALYAM PAZHAKULAM P.O., ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 691 554.
3 SIVASANKARAN, AGED 26 YEARS S/O. SIVARAMAN NAIR, KOCHUTHUNDIL PAZHAKULAM P.O., ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 691 554.
4 SHAN, AGED 25 YEARS S/O. SHAMSUDEEN, KIZHAKKE PLAVILAYIL, PAZHAKULAM P.O., ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 691 554.
5 SYAM CHANDRAN, AGED 25 YEARS S/O. KALA CHANDRAN, CHARUVILA KANJIRETHU MELOOD P.O., ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 691 554.
Crl.M.C.No.2046/2019
2
6 RAHUL, AGED 30 YEARS S/O. RAJAN, RAHUL BHAVAN P.O., ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 691 554.
BY ADV. SRI.K.K.SETHUKUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM ADOOR POLICE STATION, CRIME NO. 2360 OF 2018 ADOOR, PATHANAMTHTITA DISTRICT.
2 SURESH.R. AGED 48 YEARS S/O. RAVEENDRAN, KAIRALI VEEDU, PAZHAKULAM ,PALLICKAL VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 691 554.
BY ADV. SRI.K.S.BAIJU
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.PRIYA SHANAVAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R1, SRI.K.S.BAIJU FOR R2
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.2046/2019
3
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
Crl.M.C.No.2046 of 2019
Dated this the 4th day of June, 2019
ORDER
The petitioner herein are the accused in the impugned Anx-I FIR in Crime No.2360/2018 of Adoor Police Station, Pathanamthitta District, registered for offences punishable under Secs.143, 144, 147, 294(b), 506, 452, 354, 427, 149 of IPC and Sec.27 of Arms Act,1959, which has been registered on the basis of a complaint filed by the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant. It is stated that now the entire disputes between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant have been settled amicably and that the 2nd respondent has sworn to Anx-2 affidavit before this Court, wherein it is stated that he has settled the entire disputes with the petitioners and that he has no objection for quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners. It is in the light of these aspects that the petitioners have preferred the instant Crl.M.C. with the prayer to quash the impugned criminal proceedings against them.
Crl.M.C.No.2046/2019 4
included in the above said crime, no injuries are sustained by the victim. The above incident has happened mainly on account of the disputes between the 2nd respondent, who is the CPM activist and the accused persons, who belong to RSS.
Crl.M.C.No.2046/2019
5
particularly paragraph 29 thereof, could be applied in this case to consider the prayer for quashment.
With these observations and directions, the above Criminal Miscellaneous Case stands finally disposed of.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE
acd
Crl.M.C.No.2046/2019
6
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN ADOOR POLICE STATION CRIME NO. 2360/18. ANNEXURE 2 AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DEFACTO COMPLAINANT IN CRIME NO. 2360/18.
TRUE COPY
P.S. TO JUDGE.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned FIR and pending criminal proceedings can be quashed in the interest of justice upon settlement of dispute between parties.
Whether Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked for quashing proceedings in non-compoundable offences where the underlying dispute is settled.
Whether the continuance of prosecution serves any purpose when the complainant has sworn an affidavit of settlement.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of PunjabApplied¶2
(2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anrApplied¶2
(2014) 6 SCC 466 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
PRANAV A/20/PRADEEP/Others
STATE OF KERALA
SURESH.R.
ALEXANDER THOMAS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
ALEXANDER THOMAS
Parties & counsel
