Kerala High Court
U.G. Remesan vs State Of Kerala on 3 February, 2025
2025:KER:8635
CRL.MC NO.5352 OF 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 14TH MAGHA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 5352 OF 2024
CRIME NO.554/2013 OF ATHIRAPPILLY POLICE STATION, Thrissur
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SC NO.70 OF 2017
OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT/ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,
IRINJALAKUDA
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2:
1 U.G. REMESAN
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O. GOPALAKRISHNA MENON UPPATH HOUSE ELANJIPRA
P.O., CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680721
2 RAVEENDRAN. P
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O. PARAMESWARAN ACHARY, THADATHIL HOUSE,
KADUVINAL P.O., VALLIKUNNAM ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
PIN - 690501
BY ADV SANTHEEP ANKARATH
RESPONDENTS/STATE, DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & INJURED:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI -, PIN - 682031
2 JAYA GOPINATH
AGED 46 YEARS
2025:KER:8635
CRL.MC NO.5352 OF 2024
2
W/O. GOPINATH, MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, RAJAKKAD, IDUKKI
DISTRICT, PIN - 685566
3 DR. GOPINATH
S/O. GOPINATHAN, MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, RAJAKKAD,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685566
4 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
ATHIRAPPILLY POLICE STATION, ATHIRAPPILLY -
THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680721
5 NIMMY
W/O. LATE MANI, KUNNISSERY HOUSE, CHENATHUNADU,
CHALAKUDI H.O., CHALAKUDI, THRISSUR
6 SREELAKSHMI
D/O. LATE MANI, KUNNISSERY HOUSE, CHENATHUNADU,
CHALAKUDI H.O., CHALAKUDI, THRISSUR
BY ADVS.
SAJEEV P K
BIJU BALAKRISHNAN
V.S.RAKHEE(K/945/1994)
K.J.GISHA(K/1212/2004)
AJMAL P.(K/1244/2018)
AKSHAYA S.NAIR(K/003242/2023)
AAFINA SANTHOSH(K/1657/2020)
MAYA M.N-PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 03.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:8635
CRL.MC NO.5352 OF 2024
3
C.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
=======================
Crl.M.C No.5352 of 2024
========================
Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2025
ORDER
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
2025:KER:8635
CRL.MC NO.5352 OF 2024
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 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
2025:KER:8635
CRL.MC NO.5352 OF 2024
ground of realities and bereft of the
technicalities of the law."
2. In the facts at hand, petitioners are the accused
persons in Crime No.554 of 2013 of Athirappilly Police
Station, Thrissur, now pending as S.C. 70/2017 before
the Principal Assistant Sessions Court, Irinjalakkuda.
The offences alleged are under Sections 354(B), 324,
506(i) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The
petitioners seek quashment of entire proceedings in
the above Sessions Case, on the strength of the
settlement arrived at by and between the parties.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners,
learned counsel for the defacto complainant/respondent
nos. 2 & 3 and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
Perused the records.
4. When this Crl.M.C was moved, this Court directed to
record the statements of the defacto complainant. The
said direction was complied and the statements of the
defacto complainant and respondent no.3 (injured
2025:KER:8635
CRL.MC NO.5352 OF 2024
person in the said crime), were handed over. On
perusal of the same, it is clear that the incident in
the said case took place a considerable time ago,
wherefore they are not interested to proceed with the
prosecution case, any further. They would also state
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, affidavits have
been sworn to by the defacto complainant
(2nd respondent herein) and 3rd respondent (injured) as
Annexures-A3 and A4, wherein they would unequivocally
state that the disputes have been settled and that the
complaint stemmed from misunderstanding and now the
misunderstanding have been cleared. They would also
state that, they have no objection in quashing the
criminal proceedings against the petitioners. The
affidavits are sworn to on their free will. This Court
has also perused affidavits sworn to by the additional
respondents 5 and 6, who are the legal heirs of the
deceased CW3 (injured), wherein they would also vouch
2025:KER:8635
CRL.MC NO.5352 OF 2024
the factum of settlement. This Court is therefore
convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine
and bonafide.
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 petitioners 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. This Court also notice that offence under
Section 506(i) is compoundable, which is all the more
a reason to accept the compromise between the parties.
2025:KER:8635
CRL.MC NO.5352 OF 2024
In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed.
Annexure-A1 Final Report and all further proceedings
in S.C.No.70/2017 of the Principal Assistant Sessions
Court, Irinjalakuda, are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
C.JAYACHANDRAN,JUDGE
Pvv
2025:KER:8635
CRL.MC NO.5352 OF 2024
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT
DATED 31.3.2015 IN CRIME NO. 554/2013
OF ATHIRAPPILLY POLICE STATION
ANNEXURE A 2 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 12.3.2024
OF 2024 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT
ANNEXURE A 3 AFFIDAVIT DATED 22.5.2024 EXECUTED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT
ANNEXURE A 4 AFFIDAVIT DATED 22.5.2024 EXECUTED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT
