Skip to content


Sajeev Kumar Payyankol Vs. State of Kerala - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Judge
AppellantSajeev Kumar Payyankol
RespondentState of Kerala
Excerpt:
.....annexure a. copy of the final report dated3011.12 in cc no.2105/12 on the file of judicial first class magistrate court1 kottayam. annexure b. copy of the settlement arrived at the mediation by the petitioners and the other accused persons. annexure c. affidavit dated2202.14 sworn by the2d respondent/defacto-complainant. respondent(s)' annexures: --------------------------------------------- n i l /true copy/ p.a.to judge kss k. ramakrishnan, j.============================== crl.m.c.no.1468 of 2014 ============================== dated this, the 17th day of march, 2014. order this is an application filed by accused nos.1, 10, 11, 15, 16, 18 and 19 in c.c.no.2105/12 on the file of the judicial first class magistrate court no-i, kottayam, to quash the proceedings as against them on the.....
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN MONDAY,THE17H DAY OF MARCH201426TH PHALGUNA, 1935 Crl.MC.No. 1468 of 2014 --------------------------- CC NO.2105/2012 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT I, KOTTAYAM ..... PETITIONER(S):ACCUSED110,11,15,16,18,19: ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. SAJEEV KUMAR PAYYANKOL, SHREYAS (H), KODIYERIPARAL P.O, THALASSERY P.O., KANNUR.

2. SHINE P.P., PULARI HOUSE, PARAMBUZHA P.O, KOTTAYAM.

3. BINU JOSEPH, MALAYIL HOUSE, PUZHA VEEDU P.O, ALAPPUZHA.

4. JISMON M.J., NEDIYAKALAYIL HOUSE, CHERUVANDOOR, ETTUMANOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM.

5. ANEESH G.THOMAS, ARANATTHU PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE, VADAVATHOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM.

6. RENEESH P.RAJAN, PANDALKALAYIL HOUSE, MANJJADI P.O, KOTTAYAM.

7. SAMEER B.S., BHAGAVATHYPARAMBU HOUSE, CHENGALAM SOUTH P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADVS.SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.NANDAGOPAL S.KURUP Kss ..2/- ..2... Crl.M.C.No.1468/2014 RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM682031.

2. SAJI VARGHESE, PLANT HEAD, MRF LTD., VADAVATHOOR PO, KOTTAYAM, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.6-F, SKYLINE OXFORD APARTMENTS, KALATHIPPADY, VADVATHOOR PO, KOTTAYAM - 685 001. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S.HYMA R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.D.SREEVISAKH THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON1703-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss Crl.MC.No. 1468 of 2014 ---------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES: ------------------------------------------- ANNEXURE A. COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED3011.12 IN CC NO.2105/12 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT1 KOTTAYAM. ANNEXURE B. COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT ARRIVED AT THE MEDIATION BY THE PETITIONERS AND THE OTHER ACCUSED PERSONS. ANNEXURE C. AFFIDAVIT DATED2202.14 SWORN BY THE2D RESPONDENT/DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT. RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: --------------------------------------------- N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss K. Ramakrishnan, J.

============================== Crl.M.C.No.1468 of 2014 ============================== Dated this, the 17th day of March, 2014. ORDER

This is an application filed by accused Nos.1, 10, 11, 15, 16, 18 and 19 in C.C.No.2105/12 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court No-I, Kottayam, to quash the proceedings as against them on the basis of settlement under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. It is alleged in the petition that petitioners are accused Nos. 1, 10, 11, 15, 16, 18 and 19 in C.C.No.2105/12 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court No-I, Kottayam, which originated on the basis of a crime registered by Manarkadu Police Station of Kottayam District as Crime No.758/12 on the basis of the statement given by the second respondent herein alleging offences under Sections 143, 147, 149, 342 and Section 188 of Indian Penal Code. The matter has been now settled between the parties on the basis of a conciliation entered into between the parties in the mediation. But, since some of the offences are non-compoundable in nature, they could not file the petition before that court for compounding namely Judicial First Class Magistrate Court No-I, Crl.M.C.No.1468 of 2014 :

2. : Kottayam. In view of the settlement, there is no possibility of any conviction arises in respect of the petitioners. So, they have no other option except to approach this court seeking the following relief. "To quash all the proceedings against the Petitioner/accused in CC21052012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kottayam by allowing this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition." 3. Second respondent appeared through Counsel and submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties in the mediation and the entire dispute arose on account of a labour dispute which was also settled amicably in the mediation. So, they have no objection in allowing the application.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, as directed by this court submitted that, except this case, there is no other case pending against the petitioners but opposed the application. The Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the settlement, there is no possibility of any conviction. So, he prayed for allowing the application.

5. It is an admitted fact that on the basis of a complaint given by the second respondent as an authorized Crl.M.C.No.1468 of 2014 :

3. : representative of MRF Pvt. Ltd, Manarkadu police has registered a case against the petitioners and others as Crime No.758/12 alleging offences under Sections 143, 147, 149, 342 and Section 188 of Indian Penal Code. It is also seen from the allegations that, it was due to some labour dispute that the incident happened and now the matter has been settled between the parties and they have decided to withdraw the prosecution against the petitioners and decided to have a conciliation meeting of the union members and the Management and try to resolve the labour dispute in that meeting. So, they don't want to proceed against the petitioners.

6. In the decision reported in Gian Singh V. State of Punjab [2012(4) KLT108(SC)], it is held as follows: "The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing in criminal proceeding or F.I.R. or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under S.320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz;(i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious Crl.M.C.No.1468 of 2014 :

4. : offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc; or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of case, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." 7. So, considering the fact that it was a labour dispute and the management and labour union have come to an understanding that the dispute can be amicably settled on conciliation and for that purpose, the prosecution need not be proceeded with and it can be withdrawn, this court feels that it Crl.M.C.No.1468 of 2014 :

5. : is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked to quash the proceedings in order to promote the harmony between the management and the labour union for smooth functioning of the factory and in view of the settlement, there is no purpose will be served by allowing the case to proceed against the petitioners as even the de facto complainant is not likely to support the case of the prosecution. So, the application is allowed and further proceedings in C.C.No.2105/12 (Crime No.758/2012 of Manarkadu Police Station) now pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court No-I, Kottayam, as against the petitioners is quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court for necessary further action immediately. Sd/- K.Ramakrishnan, Judge. Bb [True copy] P.A to Judge


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //