Kerala High Court
Piyoos vs The State Of Kerala on 19 September, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 28TH BHADRA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1738 OF 2016
CRIME NO.199/2006 OF PERAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.1264 OF 2006 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KUNNAMKULAM ARISING OUT
OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.11.2016 IN CRL.A NO.106 OF 2010 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT -IV, THRISSUR
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
1 PIYOOS
S/O THOMAS, ALLUR HOUSE, PURANATTUKARA VILLAGE &
DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT
2 DAVIS
S/O.THOMAS, ALLUR HOUSE, PURANATTUKARA VILLAGE &
DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT
3 KUNJANNAN KRISHNAKUMAR
S/O.KRISHNAKUTTY, KUNNATH HOUSE, CHITTILAPPILLY
VILLAGE & DESOM
4 FIJO
S/O.JOSE MANI, PARAYIL HOUSE, PURANATTUKARA
VILLAGE & DESOM
5 VINEETH
S/O.KUNJIKUTTAN, KANDAMPATHMANAKKAL HOUSE,
PURANATTUKARA VILLAGE & DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT
BY ADV SHRI.SUJESH MENON V.B.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
Crl.R.P.No.1738 of 2016
2
2025:KER:70505
KERALA, ERNAKULAM
2 SHIBU
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O. JACOB, CHITTILAPPILLLY, PURANATTUKARA VILLAGE,
THRISSUR TALUK (ADDL. R2 IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED
08.09.2025 IN CRL.M.A 7884/16)
3 JOSHY
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O.KURIYAPPAN, AKKARAPATTYEKKAL, PURANATTUKARA
VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK (ADDL. R3 IMPLEADED VIDE
ORDER DATED 08.09.2025 IN CRL.M.A. 7884/16)
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT. MAYA.M.N -PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 19.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P.No.1738 of 2016
3
2025:KER:70505
P.V. BALAKRISHNAN, J.
........................................
Crl.R.P.No.1738 of 2016
....................................................................
Dated this the 19th day of September, 2025
ORDER
Under challenge in this revision petition is the conviction and
sentence rendered against the revision petitioners under Sections
143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 326 r/w Section 149 of the Indian
Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC for short).
2. The revision petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 4 and 6
respectively in CC No.1264 of 2006 on the files of the Judicial First
Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamkulam. They stood trial before that
court, along with the 5th accused for committing the offences
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326 and
427 r/w Section 149 IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that on 27.05.2006 at about 10
p.m.,the accused, six in number, formed themselves into an
unlawful assembly and thereafter attacked PW1 and PW2 using
dangerous weapons such as reapers, sticks etc., and inflicted
serious injuries upon them.
4. The trial court, on an elaborate appreciation of the
evidence on record and hearing both sides, found all the accused
2025:KER:70505
guilty of committing the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148,
341, 323, 324, and 326 r/w Section 149 IPC and convicted them
thereunder. But it also found the accused not guilty of committing
an offence punishable under Section 427 IPC and acquitted them
thereunder. The trial court sentenced the accused to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of three months each under
Section 143 of the IPC, six months each under Section 147 of the
IPC., rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each under
Section 148 of IPC, simple imprisonment for a period of three
months each under Section 323, and simple imprisonment for a
period of one month each under Section 341 IPC. The accused
were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each under
Section 326 IPC with a default clause.
5. The accused carried the matter in appeal by filing
Crl.Appl.No.106 of 2010 before the Additional Sessions Court-IV,
Thrissur. The said court, by judgment dated 09.11.2016 dismissed
the appeal.
6. Heard, Sri. Sujesh Menon, the learned counsel for the
revision petitioners, Smt. Maya M.N, the learned Public Prosecutor
and Smt. Monisha K.R, the learned counsel for additional
respondents 2 and 3/victims.
2025:KER:70505
7. Today, when the matter was taken up for consideration,
the learned counsel on both sides submitted that the parties, being
neighbours, have settled the matter amicably. They also submitted
that the victims, PWs 1 and 2, have filed their affidavits stating
that they have no subsisting grievance against the revision
petitioners and have no objections in quashing the proceedings.
The learned counsel for the revision petitioners further submitted
that the revision petitioners have in these circumstances filed
Crl.M.A.No.2 of 2025 under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS' for
short) to quash the entire proceedings in the case.
8. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that since the
matter has been settled amicably between the parties, she has no
objection in allowing Crl.M.A.No.2 of 2025.
9. Considering the submissions made at the Bar and on
going through the affidavits filed by additional respondents 2 and
3/victims, I am of the view that the parties who are neighbours
have amicably settled the matter between themselves and that the
victims have no subsisting grievance against the revision
petitioners. This Court in the decision in Soban v. State of Kerala
[2021(3) KHC 383] has considered the question as to whether, in
2025:KER:70505
a post-conviction stage, the powers of this Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C. (present 528 of BNSS) can be invoked to quash the entire
proceedings. After considering all the relevant materials, this
Court in paragraph 10 of the judgment held as follows:
''10. It is settled that the plenary power possessed by the
High Court u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. are very wide, though to be
exercised sparingly and with circumspection. It is equally
settled that the said power could be exercised irrespective
of the nature of the proceedings and concurrently with
appellate or revisional jurisdiction. Criminal proceedings
commence from the lodging of FIR and would continue till
the order of conviction, if passed, attains finality. When the
order of conviction by the trial Court is under challenge
before the appellate or revisional Court, it cannot be said
that the order of conviction did attain finality. The
presumption of innocence would continue till the order of
conviction attains finality despite the conviction by the trial
Court. An appeal challenging the order of conviction has the
effect of continuation of trial itself. Since the power u/s 482
of Cr.P.C. is not controlled by S.320, such power could be
exercised at any stage of the criminal proceedings including
at the appellate or revisional stage. The section does not
contemplate or specify any particular stage when the
powers u/s 482 could be invoked. S.320 also does not
contemplate any stage or specific mode by which Court can
permit compounding of the offences. Subsections (5) and (6)
of S.320 permit composition of the offences even during
appellate or revisional stage. Thus, there is no reason
whatsoever to restrict exercise of powers u/s 482 of Cr.P.C.
2025:KER:70505
only to cases where an order of conviction was not passed.
The inherent power u/s 482 for quashing criminal
proceedings being of a wide magnitude for being exercised
with the object of securing the ends of justice, there cannot
be limitation on such powers for being exercised only prior
to conviction of an accused. Merely because the order of
conviction was pending adjudication at the appellate or
revisional stage, the same could not be a ground for
refusing to exercise powers u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the
criminal proceedings especially when the parties to the
dispute had arrived at a settlement. Hence, I hold that if
requirements of S.482 of Cr.P.C were satisfied in the sense
that it was necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any
Court or to secure the ends of justice, the criminal
proceedings involving non-compoundable offence could be
quashed notwithstanding the fact that the order of
conviction was already passed against the accused provided
offence in question does not fall in the category of offences
prohibited for compounding in terms of the pronouncement
of the Apex Court in Gian Singh (supra), Narinder Singh
(supra) and Laxmi Narayan (supra).
Ergo, in the light of the afore dictum, I am inclined to invoke
the powers under Section 528 of BNSS in this case and quash the
proceedings, since the same will only secure the ends of justice
and prevent abuse of the process of court. Hence,
Crl.M.A.No.2/2025 is hereby allowed.
In the result, this criminal revision petition is allowed as
2025:KER:70505
follows;
The conviction and sentence passed against the
revision petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 and 6 under
Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 326 r/w
Section 149 IPC in CC No.1264 of 2006 by the
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamkulam,
and as confirmed in Crl.Appl.No.106 of 2010, by the
Additional Sessions Court-IV, Thrissur, are set aside
and the entire proceedings initiated on the basis of
Crime No.199 of 2006 of Peramangalam Police
Station are quashed.
Sd/-
P.V. BALAKRISHNAN
JUDGE
Dxy
