Gopakumar Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Gopakumar Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashment of Annexure-A2 final report and all further proceedings in C.P. No. 2/2025 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Mavelikkara, arising out of Crime No. 1229 of 2024 of Nooranad Police Station.

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings arising out of Crime No. 1229 of 2024 (offences under Sections 333, 296(b), 74, 75(1), 126(2) and 115(2), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), pending as C.P. No. 2/2025 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Mavelikkara, can be quashed on the strength of the settlement arrived at between the parties. +1 more

Court's answer

The recorded statements of the de facto complainant and the injured witness establish that the issues between them and the petitioner are settled and that they have no objection to quashing the criminal proceedings.

Ratio / Principle

The necessary parameters for quashment, as culled out in Narinder Singh, Madan Mohan Abbot and Gian Singh, are fully satisfied in the present case.

Key takeaways

If compelled to face the criminal proceedings despite the settlement, the parties would undergo a futile exercise with little possibility of conviction, amounting to abuse of the process of Court; the quashment sought for would secure the ends of justice.ratio¶45
The affidavits (Annexures-A3 and A4) were sworn on their own volition, affirming amicable settlement and no objection, and counsel for respondents 2 and 3 endorsed the quashment; the Court is convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine and bonafide.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashment of criminal proceedings — settlement/compromise between parties — inherent power under Section 482 CrPC — offences under Sections 333, 296(b), 74, 75(1), 126(2) and 115(2), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The sole accused sought quashing of the entire proceedings in C.P. No. 2/2025 (Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Mavelikkara), arising from the final report in Crime No. 1229/2024 of Nooranadu Police Station, on the basis of an inter se settlement. Statements of the de facto complainant and the injured witness, recorded at the Court's direction, and their affidavits (Annexures-A3 and A4), affirmed a genuine, bonafide and voluntary settlement with no objection to quashment, endorsed by counsel for respondents 2 and 3. Finding the parameters culled out in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303], Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [(2008) 4 SCC 582] fully satisfied, and noting that Sections 115(2) and 126(2) BNS are compoundable, the Court held that further proceedings would be futile, carry little possibility of conviction, and amount to abuse of process, while quashment would secure the ends of justice. Crl.M.C. allowed; Annexure-A2 final report and all further proceedings quashed. Guidelines of the five-Judge Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab [(2007) 4 CTC 769] were recounted. — Justice C. Jayachandran, 11.03.2025.

2025:KER:22279

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN

TUESDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1946

CRL.MC NO. 1654 OF 2025

CRIME NO.1229/2024 OF Nooranadu Police Station, Alappuzha

AGAINST CP NO.2 OF 2025 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS-II, MAVELIKKARA

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

GOPAKUMAR AGED 42 YEARS

S/O GOPALA PILLAI, UTHRADAM VEEDU, ULAVUKKADU, PALAMEL P O, NOORANAD, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 689512

BY ADV MANJUSHA K

RESPONDENTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & INJURED WITNESS:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031

2 SUJA AGED 42 YEARS W/O MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI, MURALI BHAVANAM, ULAVUKKAD, PALAMEL P O, NOORANAD, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 689512

3 JANARDHANAN PILLAI AGED 87 YEARS S/O KRISHNAPILLAI, MURALI BHAVANAM, ULAVUKKAD, PALAMEL P O, NOORANAD, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 689512

BY ADV SREELAKSHMI SABU

ADV SANAL P. RAJ – PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

11.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.M.C.No. 1654 of 2025

..2..

2025:KER:22279

O R D E R

Dated this the 11^th day of March, 2025

A five Judges Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kulwinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another [(2007) 4 CTC 769], framed broad guidelines as regards quashment of the criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code in respect of offences which are not compoundable in terms of Section 320 of the Code. One among the guidelines was that the offences against human body, other than murder and culpable homicide, may be permitted to be compounded, when the court is in a position to record a finding that the settlement between the parties is voluntary and fair. These guidelines were quoted with approval by a three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another [(2012) 10 SCC 303]. Similarly in Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab [(2014) 6 SCC 466], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has gone to the extent of sanctioning invocation of the inherent power under section

Crl.M.C.No. 1654 of 2025

2025:KER:22279

482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the F.I.R in a crime alleging offences under Section 307, which is a henious and serious offence. A practical approach is seen adopted by the Hon'ble Supreme in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [(2008) 4 SCC 582] as regards quashment in respect of offences like 379, 406, 409, 418, etc., the relevant findings of which are extracted herebelow:

“6. We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.”

In the facts at hand, petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.1229 of 2024 of Nooranadu Police Station,

Crl.M.C.No. 1654 of 2025

2025:KER:22279

Alappuzha, now pending as C.P.No.2/2025 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Mavelikkara. The offences alleged are under Sections 333, 296(b), 74, 75(1), 126(2)

and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner seeks quashment of entire proceedings in the above case, on the strength of the settlement arrived at by and between the parties.

3 . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent n os.2 & 3, and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records.

4. When this Crl.M.C was moved, this Court directed to record the sta tement s of the defacto complainant and the injured (3 rd respondent herein). The said direction was complied and the i r statement, were handed over. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the issues between the petitioner, the defacto complainant and the injured are settled and that they have no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. That apart,

Crl.M.C.No. 1654 of 2025

2025:KER:22279

it is noticed that, along with th is Crl.M.C, affidavit s hav e been sworn to by the defacto complainant and the injured as Annexures-A3 and A4, wherein they would unequivocally state that the disputes have been amicably settled. The y would also swear that they have no surviving grievance against the petitioner and that they have no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. The affidavits are sworn to on their own volition. This Court is therefore convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine and bonafide. Learned counsel for respondents 2 & 3 would also endorse that the quashment sought for can be allowed.

5. In the light of the above referred facts, this Court is of the opinion that the necessary parameters, as culled out in Narinder Singh (supra), Madan Mohan Abbot (supra) and Gian Singh (supra), are fully satisfied. This court is convinced that further proceedings against the petitioner will be a futile exercise, inasmuch as the disputes have already been settled. There is little possibility of any

Crl.M.C.No. 1654 of 2025

2025:KER:22279

conviction in the crime. Dehors the settlement arrived at by and between the parties, if they are compelled to face the criminal proceedings, the same, in the estimation of this Court, will amount to abuse of process of Court. The quashment sought for would secure the ends of justice. This Court also notice that the offences under Sections 115(2) and 126(2) are compoundable, which is all the more a reason to accept the compromise between the parties.

In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Anne xure-A2 final report, and all further proceedings in C.P.No.2/2025 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Mavelikkara, are hereby quashed.

Sd/-

C. JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE

TR

Crl.M.C.No. 1654 of 2025

..7..

2025:KER:22279

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1654/2025

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF F.I.R IN CRIME NO. 1229 OF 2024 OF NOORANAD POLICE STATION DATED 5-10-2024

Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 1229 OF 2024 OF NOORANAD POLICE STATION WHICH IS NUMBERED AS C P NO. 2 OF 2025 ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL FIRST-CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II, MAVELIKKARA DATED 7-1-2025

Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DULY SIGNED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 14-2-2025

Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT DULY SIGNED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT WHO IS THE INJURED WITNESS IN ANNEXURE A1 CRIME DATED 142-2025