Kerala High Court
Thomaskutty vs 1. Station House Officer, Railway ... on 11 February, 2025
2025:KER:11677
CRL.MC NO.5534 OF 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 22ND MAGHA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 5534 OF 2023
CRIME NO.135/2017 OF RAILWAY POLICE STATION, Thrissur
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.2535 OF 2017 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III,THRISSUR ARISING
OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.2535 OF 2017 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III,THRISSUR
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
THOMASKUTTY
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O KUTTAYI, THIRUTHIKKAT HOUSE, PADINJARETHARA,
PATTIKKADU, THRISSUR, PIN - 680652
BY ADVS.
M.S.IMTHIYAZ AHAMMED
SHIRAZ ABDULLA
RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, RAILWAY POLICE STATION,
THRISSUR
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682018
2 GEETHA
AGED 56 YEARS
2025:KER:11677
CRL.MC NO.5534 OF 2023
2
W/O BALAN, SUMYALAYAM HOUSE, PURAMERI P O,
PURAMERI VILLAGE, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT, PIN - 673503
BY ADVS.
SAHEERA
P.SEENA(K/000546/2000)
MUHAMMED BANI M.(K/000115/2019)
MEHARBAN(K/000458/2017)
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 11.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:11677
CRL.MC NO.5534 OF 2023
3
C.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
=======================
Crl.M.C No.5534 of 2023
========================
Dated this the 11th 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:11677 CRL.MC NO.5534 OF 2023 4 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 2025:KER:11677 CRL.MC NO.5534 OF 2023 5 effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law."
2. In the facts at hand, petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.135 of 2017 of Thrissur Railway Police Station, Thrissur, now pending as C.C.No.2535/2017 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thrissur. The offence alleged is under Section 354 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 defacto complainant/respondent no. 2 and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the records.
2025:KER:11677 CRL.MC NO.5534 OF 2023 6
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 statement was handed over. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the issues between the petitioner and the defacto complainant have been settled in mediation. Furthermore, the defacto complainant would also state that she is unsure whether the petitioner herein is the real accused; wherefore, she does not intent to continue with the prosecution case, any further. 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-C, wherein she would unequivocally state that the complaint stemmed from misunderstanding and mistaken identity. The defacto complainant would also swear that she has no surviving grievance against the petitioner and that she has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. This Court is 2025:KER:11677 CRL.MC NO.5534 OF 2023 7 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 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.
In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-A F.I.R., Annexure-B Final report and all 2025:KER:11677 CRL.MC NO.5534 OF 2023 8 further proceedings in Crime No.135/2017 of Railway Police Station, Thrissur, pending as C.C.No.2535/2017 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thrissur, are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
C.JAYACHANDRAN,JUDGE Pvv 2025:KER:11677 CRL.MC NO.5534 OF 2023 9 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5534/2023 PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR NO.135/2017 OF THE THRISSUR RAILWAY POLICE DTD 23- 05-2017 ANNEXURE B CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC. NO.2535/2017 ANNEXURE C A TRUE COY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT DTD 12-06-2023