Sibi.v.T Vs State of Kerala

¶1

CRL.MC NO. 1665 OF 2025

¶2

 2025:KER:22714

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN

¶7

THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1946

¶8

CRL.MC NO. 1665 OF 2025

¶9

CRIME NO.487/2021 OF Chittarikal Police Station, Kasargod

¶10

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC NO.1028 OF 2021 OF JUDICIAL

¶11

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,HOSDRUG

¶12

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶13

SIBI.V.T
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O. THOMAS, VAZHAKKALAYIL HOUSE, PATHIKKARA, BELAL
VILLAGE, VELLARIKUNDU, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671533

¶14

BY ADVS.
HEMALATHA
BINU GEORGE
AVANI P.S.

¶15

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶16

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

¶17

2REHNA.P
AGED 26 YEARS
W/O. RAHUL.K, PADIYIL HOUSE, KOLAMKULAM, PARAPPA
VILLAGE, KASARGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671533

¶18

BY ADV KRISHNA KUMAR G.S.
SR.PP C.N PRABHAKARAN

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

CRL.MC NO. 1665 OF 2025

¶21

¶22

 2025:KER:22714

¶23

C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.

¶24

------------------------------------
 Crl.M.C.No.1665 of 2025

¶25

------------------------------------
Dated, this the 6th day of March, 2025

¶26

ORDER

¶27

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

¶28

CRL.MC NO. 1665 OF 20253 2025:KER:22714

¶29

sanctioning invocation of the inherent power under
Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the
F.I.R. in a crime alleging offence under Section 307,
which is a heinous 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:

¶30

“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.”

¶31

2.In the facts at hand, petitioner is the sole

¶32

CRL.MC NO. 1665 OF 20254 2025:KER:22714

¶33

accused in Crime No.487/2021 of Chittarikal Police
Station, Kasargod, now pending as C.C.No.1028/2021
before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II,
Hosdurg. As per the final report the offences alleged
are under Sections 354 and 354A(1)(i),(ii),(iv) of the
Indian Penal Code. The petitioner seeks quashment of
entire proceedings in the above Calendar Case, on the
strength of the settlement arrived at by and between the
parties.

¶34

3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned counsel for the defacto complainant/respondent
no.2 and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused
the records.

¶35

4.When this Crl.M.C was moved, this Court directed
to record the statement of the defacto complainant. The
said direction was complied and the statement was handed
over. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the
issues between the petitioner and the defacto
complainant are settled out of the Court and that the

¶36

CRL.MC NO. 1665 OF 20255 2025:KER:22714

¶37

defacto complainant has no objection in quashing the
criminal proceedings against the petitioner. That apart,
it is noticed that, along with this Crl.M.C, an
affidavit has been sworn to by the defacto complainant
(2nd respondent herein) as Annexure-A6, wherein she
would unequivocally state that the disputes have been
settled out of the Court and that she has no grievance
against the petitioner. The defacto complainant would
also swear that she has no objection in quashing the
prosecution case against the petitioner and that the
affidavit is sworn to on her own volition, without any
compulsion, whatsoever. This Court, is therefore,
convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine and
bonafide. Learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent/defacto
complainant would also endorse that the quashment sought
for can be allowed.

¶38

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

¶39

CRL.MC NO. 1665 OF 2025

¶40

6 2025:KER:22714

¶41

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 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.

¶42

In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed.
Annexure-A1 F.I.R., Annexure-A2 Final Report in Crime
No.487/2021 andallfurtherproceedingsin
C.C.No.1028/2021 before the Judicial First Class

¶43

Magistrate Court-II, Hosdurg, are hereby quashed.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

C. JAYACHANDRAN

¶46

JUDGE

¶47

ska

¶48

CRL.MC NO. 1665 OF 2025

¶49

 2025:KER:22714

¶50

¶51

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1665/2025

¶52

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶53

Annexure A1A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 487/2021
OF CHITTARIKKAL POLICE STATION

¶54

Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 487/2021 OF CHITTARIKKAL POLICE STATION

¶55

Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE DATED 17.08.2021 ISSUED BY PHC, CHITTARICKAL

¶56

Annexure A4 CERTIFIED COPY OF MEMO OF EVIDENCE IN CRIME NO. 487/2021 OF CHITTARIKKAL POLICE STATION

¶57

Annexure A5 CERTIFIED COPY OF STATEMENT OF WITNESSES IN CRIME NO. 487/2021 OF CHITTARIKKAL POLICE STATION

¶58

Annexure A6AFFIDAVIT DATED 05.02.2025 SWORN BY 2ND
RESPONDENT

Sibi.v.T v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sibi.v.T v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.Faizal Vs State of Kerala

Jijo K U Vs State of Kerala

Nizar.C.a Vs State of Kerala

Hudaifa C.H, Vs State of Kerala

Ajmal Sha O.S Vs State of Kerala

Shanif M K Vs State of Kerala