Allowed

Reghu v. State of Kerala and Another

Kerala HC5 Sept 2008Crl.MC/3305/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition to quash prosecution under Section 436 IPC for mischief by fire. Relying on a settlement between the accused and his mother and citing Madan Mohan Abbot, the Court held that under Section 482 Cr.P.C., further proceedings should be terminated.

What did the court decide?

The criminal miscellaneous case was allowed. The FIR (Crime No.192/05 Kunnicode) against the petitioner was quashed.

Reghu 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

FRIDAY, THE 5TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 14TH BHADRA 1930

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3305 of 2008()

¶6

¶7

[CRIME NO.192/2005 OF KUNNICODE POLICE STATION]

¶8

PETITIONER: `ACUSED

¶9

¶10

REGHU, CHARUVILA VEETTIL, KINATTILKARA, AVANISWARAM MURI, VILAKUDY VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.R.ARUN RAJ

¶12

RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT

¶13

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KUNNICODE POLICE STATION (CRIME NO.192 OF 2005)REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

DEVAKI, AGED 55, D/O.KURUMBA, CHARUVILA VEETTIL, KINATTILKARA, AVANISWARAM MURI, VILAKUDY VILLAGE.

¶16

BY ADV. SMT.SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN FOR R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

R.BASANT, J.

¶19

Crl.M.C.No.3305 of 2008

¶20

Dated this the 5^th day of September 2008

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The petitioner is the sole accused in a prosecution under Section 436 I.P.C. The de facto complainant in that crime is his mother who has been arrayed as the second accused. The crux of the allegations is that the petitioner in a drunken state has indulged in mischief by fire in the house occupied by him and his mother. On the complaint of his mother, an F.I.R was registered. Investigation has commenced. In the course of investigation, the mother son duo has settled their disputes and they have now come before this court with the prayer that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner may be prematurely terminated. The offence under Section 436 I.P.C is not compoundable. But it is the contention of the parties that as a matter of fact, the ingredients of the offence under Section 436 I.P.C will not at all be attracted. However, they further submit that, at any rate, they having been settled their disputes, powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C as enabled by the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [2008 AIR SCW 2287] can be pressed into

¶23

Crl.M.C.No.3305/08

¶24

¶25

service to bring to premature termination the proceedings against the petitioner. I am satisfied from the submissions made at the Bar and also from the affidavits filed by the second respondent that the parties have willingly and voluntarily settled the disputes between them.

¶26

The learned Public Prosecutor, after taking instructions, submits that the police is satisfied that there has been a genuine and bona fide settlement of the disputes and composition of the alleged offences committed by the petitioner against the second respondent herein. If legally possible and permissible, I am satisfied that the composition can be accepted and the proceedings against the petitioner can be brought to premature termination.

¶27

The decision in Madan Mohan (Supra) is pressed into service by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the second respondent and I am satisfied in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be invoked to bring to premature termination the further proceedings in crime No.192/2005 of Kunnicode police station against the petitioner.

¶28

Crl.M.C.No.3305/08

¶29

¶30

In the result,

¶31

a) This Crl.M.C is allowed.

¶32

b) Crime No.192/05 registered at the Kunnicode police station at the instance of the second respondent against the

¶33

petitioner herein is hereby quashed.

¶34

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

jsr

Crl.M.C.No.3305/08 4

Crl.M.C.No.3305/08 5

R.BASANT, J.

CRL.M.C.No. of 2008

ORDER

09/07/2008

Reghu v. State of Kerala and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reghu 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

Govindan Vs State of Kerala

Mrs.Jain Babu Vs K.J.Joseph and Another

Mr.John George Vs State of Kerala

Rajeevan Vs State of Kerala

Padmini Vs State of Kerala

C.K.Sudhakaran Vs C.C.Ramkishore