Harkish Sreethu Vs State of Kerala

¶1

2025:KER:21800

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN

¶5

MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1946

¶6

CRL.MC NO. 4023 OF 2023

¶7

CRIME NO.2057/2019 OF Museum Police Station,

¶8

Thiruvananthapuram

¶9

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.5 OF

¶10

2020 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -

¶11

III,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶12

PETITIONERS/ACCSED:

¶13

1HARKISH SREETHU
AGED 23 YEARS
S/O SADANANDAN, VIDAKKARA, NEAR PRIVATE BUS
STAND, NORTH PARAVUR POST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 683594

¶14

2 AASHIQ C BOSE AGED 23 YEARS S/O CHANDRABOSE, GREENLAND HOUSE, NEAR KAILASOM MUKKU JUNCTION, MARAVOOR WARD, KIZHAKKEKALLADA VILLAGE, KALLADA EAST, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691502

¶15

3 JISHNU S NATH AGED 23 YEARS S/O SATHYANATHAN NAYAR, CHANGOOR MELETHIL VEEDU, MEENAM PATTAZHI POST, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691522

¶16

4AJAY S KOSHY
AGED 23 YEARS
S/O SAIJU KOSHY, ANJANAM HOUSE,
SHANKARAMANGALAM, SASTHAMCOTTAH POST, KOLLAM

¶17

Crl.MC.No.4023 of 2023

¶18

2025:KER:21800

¶19

:2:

¶20

DISTRICT, PIN - 690521

¶21

5 AADITH A J AGED 25 YEARS

¶22

S/O AJAYKUMAR, GOURISHANKARA, WARD NO: 7, NEAR OOTTUPARAMBIL TEMPLE, KADAKKAVOOR POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695309

¶23

6 AMAL KRISHNAN AGED 24 YEARS

¶24

S/O HARIKUMAR K K , KANDANALLUR HOUSE,
MYLAKULAM PUTHUR PO, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM, PIN
- 691507

¶25

7 ANANDAKRISHNAN R AGED 24 YEARS S/O RADHAKRISHNAN, ANANDU BHAVAN, PAVITHRESWARAM PO, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691505

¶26

8 ACHUTH VASAN AGED 26 YEARS S/O SANTHOSH KUMAR, INDHU BHAVAN, KARAKULAM POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 696564

¶27

9 YADHU KRISHNAN AGED 24 YEARS

¶28

S/O SURESH, THAZHCHAYIL HOUSE, NEAR ST MARY’S
SCHOOL, ARYAD SOUTH POST, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
PIN - 688007

¶29

0 SREENATH AGED 19 YEARS S/O.SURENDRA NATH, SREE VAISYAKHAM,KAPPIL MEKKU, KRISHNAPURAM PO, KAYAMKULAM, PIN - 690533

¶30

11 MUHAMMED SABITH N J AGED 24 YEARS

¶31

S/O NASARUDHEEN, SAHI NIVAS, KANNAMCODE,
VENJARAMMOODU POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 695607

¶32

12 SOORAJ V S AGED 24 YEARS

¶33

S/O VIKRAMAN NAIR, V S BHAVAN, NEAR PANGAPPARA
GURU MANDIRAM, SREEKARYAM WARD, PANGAPPARA
POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695581

¶34

13 AKHIL

¶35

Crl.MC.No.4023 of 2023

¶36

2025:KER:21800

¶37

:3:

¶38

AGED 23 YEARS
S/O SANTHOSH KUMAR, PUTHENPARAMBU HOUSE, NEAR
IRAVUKADU TEMPLE, AMBALAPPUZHA POST, ALAPPUZHA
DISTRICT, PIN - 688561

¶39

BY ADVS.
G.P.SHINOD
GOVIND PADMANAABHAN
AJIT G ANJARLEKAR
ATUL MATHEWS
GAYATHRI S.B.

¶40

RESPONDENTS /STATE AND DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶41

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AT THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

¶42

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER OFFICE OF THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER MUSEUM POLICE STATION, MUSEUM POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695033

¶43

KARTHIKA SATHYAN
AGED 24 YEARS

¶44

3 /O REMA, PUTHENKUDIYIL HOUSE, KAKKANAD POST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682030

¶45

4SAFNA
AGED 24 YEARS
D/O ANSAR BEEGUM, PLANTHOTTATHIL HOUSE,
THONNAKKAL VILLAGE, PANDALAM POST, ADOOR,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689501

¶46

5 ANCHALA NASREEN SUBAIR AGED 23 YEARS

¶47

D/O SUNITHA SUBAIR, KUZHIIL HOUSE, NEAR
MARAMBILLI AVT TEA COMPANY, VAZHAKULAM POST,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686670

¶48

BY ADV R.S.ANANDAN

¶49

SRI. C.N. PRABHAKARAN (SR.PP)

¶50

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶51

10.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶52

Crl.MC.No.4023 of 2023

¶53

2025:KER:21800

¶54

:4:

¶55

C.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

¶56

Crl.MC.No.4023 of 2023

¶57

Dated this the 10^th day of March, 2025

¶58

O R D E R

¶59

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

¶60

2025:KER:21800

¶61

Crl.MC.No.4023 of 2023

¶62

:5:

¶63

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 482
of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the F.I.R in
a crime alleging offence 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:

¶64

“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

¶65

2025:KER:21800

¶66

Crl.MC.No.4023 of 2023

¶67

:6:

¶68

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
ofrealitiesandbereftofthe
technicalities of the law.”

¶69

2.In the facts at hand, petitioners are the
accused persons in Crime No.2057 of 2019 of Museum
Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, now pending as
C.C.No.5/2020 before the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court-III, Thiruvananthapuram. The
offences alleged are under Sections 143, 147, 149,
341, 294(b) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The
petitioners seek quashment of entire proceedings in
the above Calendar Case, on the strength of the
settlement arrived at by and between the parties.

¶70

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners,
learned counsel for the defacto complainant/ 3rd
respondent and respondent nos.4 and 5 and the
learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the

¶71

Crl.MC.No.4023 of 2023

¶72

2025:KER:21800

¶73

:7:

¶74

records.

¶75

5. 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 statements
of the defacto complainant (3rd respondent herein)
and respondents 4 & 5 (victims in the said crime),
were handed over. On perusal of the same, it is
clear that the issues between the petitioners, the
defacto complainant and the victims are settled
amicably. They would also state that they have no
grievances against the petitioners and that they
have no objection in quashing the criminal
proceedings against the petitioners. That apart, it
is noticed that, along with this Crl.M.C, an
affidavit has been sworn to by the defacto
complainant (3rd respondent herein) as Annexure-C,
wherein she would unequivocally state that the
disputes have been amicably settled and that she has
no further grievances against the petitioners. The

¶76

2025:KER:21800

¶77

Crl.MC.No.4023 of 2023

¶78

:8:

¶79

defacto complainant would also swear that she has no
objection in quashing the case against the
petitioners and that the affidavit is sworn to on
her own volition. Annexures-D and E are affidavits
sworn to by the respondents 4 and 5, wherein they
would also vouch the factum of settlement claimed by
the petitioners. This Court is therefore convinced
that the settlement arrived at is genuine and
bonafide. Learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 5
would also endorse that the quashment sought for can
be allowed.

¶80

6. 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 petitioners will be
a futile exercise, inasmuch as the disputes have
already been settled. There is little possibility of

¶81

2025:KER:21800

¶82

Crl.MC.No.4023 of 2023

¶83

:9:

¶84

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. This Court
also notice that offences under Sections 341 and 323
are compoundable, which is all the more a reason to
accept the compromise between the parties.

¶85

In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed.
Annexure-A FIR, Annexure-B Final Report, and all
further proceedings in C.C.No.5/2020 of the Judicial
FirstClassMagistrateCourt-III,
Thiruvananthapuram, are hereby quashed.

¶86

sd/-

¶87

C. JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE.

¶88

Raj.

¶89

2025:KER:21800

¶90

Crl.MC.No.4023 of 2023

¶91

:10:

¶92

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4023/2023

¶93

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶94

Annexure AA CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
NO: 2057 OF 2019 OF MUSEUM POLICE
STATION DATED 6.11.2019

¶95

Annexure BA CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT
IN CRIME NO: 2057 OF 2019 OF MUSEUM
POLICE STATION DATED 29.11.2019

¶96

Annexure CTHE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT DATED
05.04.2023 SWORN TO BY THE DE FACTO
COMPLAINANT/ 3RD RESPONDENT

¶97

Annexure D: THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT DATED
05.04.2023 SWORN TO BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT

¶98

Annexure ETHE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT DATED
05.04.2023 SWORN TO BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT.

Harkish Sreethu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harkish Sreethu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikraman Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Aneesh Vs State of Kerala

Eldho Alias Vs State of Kerala

Anees.K.P. Vs State of Kerala

Sadikk Vs State of Kerala

Rajeev.S. Vs State of Kerala