Kerala High Court
Rajan Varghese vs State Of Kerala on 10 March, 2025
2025:KER:23844
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 7540 OF 2024
CRIME NO.2356/2014 OF Adoor Police Station, Pathanamthitta
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC NO.376 OF 2015 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS , ADOOR
PETITIONER/ACUSED:
RAJAN VARGHESE
AGED 68 YEARS
S/O. VARGHESE, PALLATHPUTHEN VEEDU, ARAMANAPADI,
AMMAKANDAKARA MURI, PERINGINAD VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN
- 691528
BY ADVS.
MATHEW KURIAKOSE
T.G.SUNIL (PERUMBAVOOR)
C.N.PRAKASH
ARUN.S.
J.KRISHNAKUMAR (ADOOR)
SHAJI P.K.
PREETHU JAGATHY
RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 JOHN K .J.,
AGED 80 YEARS
S/O. JOSEPH ULAHANNAN, KOIPURATHU BETHEL HOUSE, ARAMANAPADI,
AMMAKANDAKARA MURI, PERINGINAD VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN
- 691528
3 MARIAMMA JOHN
AGED 66 YEARS
W/O. JOHN K.J., KOIPURATHU BETHEL HOUSE, ARAMANAPADI,
AMMAKANDAKARA MURI, PERINGINAD VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN
- 691528
4 ALEX JOHN,
Crl.M.C.No.7540 Of 2024 2025:KER:23844
-2-
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O. JOHN K.J., KOIPURATHU BETHEL HOUSE, ARAMANAPADI,
AMMAKANDAKARA MURI, PERINGINAD VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA,
PIN - 691528
BY ADV MONI GEORGE
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. SANAL P. RAJ (PP)
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.7540 Of 2024 2025:KER:23844
-3-
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.7540 of 202
------------------------------------
Dated, this the 10th day of March, 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
Singh and Others v. State of Punjab [(2014) 6 SCC
Crl.M.C.No.7540 Of 2024 2025:KER:23844
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 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:
"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
Crl.M.C.No.7540 Of 2024 2025:KER:23844
technicalities of the law."
2. In the facts at hand, petitioner is the sole
accused in Crime No.2356/2014 of Adoor Police
Station, Pathanamthitta, now pending as
C.C.No.376/2015 before the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court, Adoor. As per the final report, the
offences alleged are under Sections 447, 326, 324 and
323 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.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/defacto
complainant and respondents 3 and 4 and the learned
Public Prosecutor. Perused the records.
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 statements of
the defacto complainant and respondents 3 and 4
(injured persons) were handed over. On perusal of the
Crl.M.C.No.7540 Of 2024 2025:KER:23844
same, it is clear that the issues between the
petitioner, the defacto complainant and the injured
are settled amicably and that they have 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-B, wherein he would unequivocally state that
the disputes have been settled and that the complaint
stemmed from some misunderstanding. The defacto
complainant does not want to proceed with the
prosecution case any more and that he has no
objection in quashing the criminal proceedings
against the petitioners. This Court also perused
Annexures C and D affidavits sworn to by the injures
persons (respondents 3 and 4), wherein they would
also vouch the factum of settlement. The affidavits
are sworn to on their own volition, without any
compulsion, whatsoever. This Court, is therefore,
convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine
and bonafide. Learned Counsel for the respondents 2
Crl.M.C.No.7540 Of 2024 2025:KER:23844
to 4 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
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 447 and 323 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.
Crl.M.C.No.7540 Of 2024 2025:KER:23844
Annexure-A Final Report in Crime no.2356/2014 and all
further proceedings in C.C.No.376/2015 of the
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor, are
hereby quashed.
Sd/-
C. JAYACHANDRAN
JUDGE
ska
Crl.M.C.No.7540 Of 2024 2025:KER:23844
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.
2356/2014 OF ADOOR POLICE STATION IN
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT [ RELEVANT PAGES ONLY ]
Annexure B ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 06.07.2024
Annexure C ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
DATED 06.07.2024
Annexure D ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
DATED 06.07.2024
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL
TRUE COPY
P.A. TO JUDGE
