Allowed

Sai Mohan v. State of Kerala and Another

Kerala HC16 Sept 2008Crl.MC/3099/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 380 IPC upon a successful settlement between the parties, relying on inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to avoid waste of judicial time in a private dispute.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Case No. 377/05 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thiruvananthapuram against the petitioners and respondents 3 to 5 were quashed.

Sai Mohan Vs State of Kerala and Another — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 25TH BHADRA 1930

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3099 of 2008()

¶6

------------------------CC.377/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, TRIVANDRUM

¶7

PETITIONER: 1ST ACCUSED

¶8

¶9

SAI MOHAN, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.BHASKARA PILLAI, T.C.9/432, SAI VIHAR, SANKAR ROAD, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) SRI.K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS: STATE AND COMPLAINANT

¶12

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶14

C.K.SHERRY, S/O.KUNJACHAN, TC 11/277, NEAR CHRIST NAGAR SCHOOL, NANTHANCODE, KAVADIAR.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY FOR R2

¶16

SRI.SANDEEP T.GEORGE FOR R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

R.BASANT, J.

¶19

Crl.M.C.No.3099 of 2008

¶20

Dated this the 16^th day of September 2008

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The petitioner and respondents 3 to 5 face indictment in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 380 read with 34 I.P.C. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police. The crux of the allegations against the accused persons is that they, in furtherance of their common intention, had stealthily removed a computer etc. from the premises of a private limited company. The de facto complainant is the second respondent who was one of the directors of the Company. While the matter is pending before the learned J.F.C.M-III, Thiruvananthapuram, the parties have settled their disputes. The second respondent/ de facto complainant has filed an affidavit also to report to the court that the disputes have been settled.

¶23

The dispute basically arose from internecine quarrel between the Directors and the employees. They have settled their disputes. Though the offence under Section 380 Cr.P.C is not legally compoundable, the learned counsel pray that invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C as enabled by the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of

¶24

Crl.M.C.No.3099/08

¶25

¶26

Punjab [2008 AIR SCW 2287] premature termination of proceedings may be brought about. Ground realities may be taken into account. Waste of judicial time may be avoided. It may be noted that the dispute is one which is purely private and personal between the contestants and no issue of public policy or public interest is involved.

¶27

Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶28

The learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the application.

¶29

It is confirmed that there has been bona fide and genuine settlement of the disputes between the parties. I am satisfied that this is an eminently fit case where powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C, as enabled by the dictum in Madan Mohan (Supra) can be pressed into service.

¶30

In the result,

¶31

a) This petition is allowed.

¶32

b) C.C No.377/05 pending before the learned Judicial

¶33

First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thiruvananthapuram against the petitioners and respondents 3 to 5 is hereby quashed.

¶34

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

jsr

Crl.M.C.No.3099/08 3

Crl.M.C.No.3099/08 4

R.BASANT, J.

CRL.M.C.No. of 2008

ORDER

09/07/2008

Sai Mohan v. State of Kerala and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sai Mohan v. State of Kerala and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Eastern Treads Ltd. Vs State of Kerala, Rep. by Its Public Pros

C.S. Harikumar Vs State of Kerala

Sara Isaac Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Haneefa Vs State of Kerala

Varghese Joseph Vs Sree Ram Investments Ltd. and Another

Shajahan Vs State of Kerala