Allowed

Vineesh v. the State

Kerala HC7 Mar 2008Crl.MC/540/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed compounding of compoundable offences under Sections 341, 323, and 324 IPC due to settlement, acquitting petitioners of these charges. The court also quashed proceedings for non-compoundable offences under Sections 143, 147, and 149 IPC as they could not survive the compounding of the main offences.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for compounding allowed; petitioners acquitted of Sections 341, 323, 324 IPC. C.C. No. 191/2005 quashed regarding Sections 143, 147, 149 IPC.

Vineesh Vs the State — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 7TH MARCH 2008 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1929

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 540 of 2008()

¶6

-----------------------CC.191/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PATTAMBI CRIME NO. 73/2005 of THRITHALA POLICE STATION

¶7

PETITIONER: ACCUSED:

¶8

¶9

VINEESH, S/O.CHAKKAYI, AGED 25 YEARS, OTTIRI PALLIYALIL VEEDU, P.O.MEZHATHUR, KIZHAKKE KODANADU.

¶10

SANTHOSH, S/O.SANKARAN, AGED 32 YEARS, KOZHINJIPARAMBIL VEEDU, P.O.MEZHATHUR, KODANADU.

¶11

SATHEESH, S/O.SANKARAN, AGED 28 YEARS, KOZHINJIPARAMBIL VEEDU, P.O.MEZHATHUR, KODANADU.

¶12

RATHEESH, S/O.KRISHNAN KUTTY AGED 23 YEARS, KOZHINJIPARAMBIL VEEDU, P.O.MEZHATHUR, KODANADU.

¶13

SUNRISE, S/O.SANKARAN, AGED 30 YEARS, KOZHINJIPARAMBIL VEEDU, P.O.MEZHATHUR, KODANADU.

¶14

VIJAYAN, S/O.AYYAPPAN, 32 YEARS, KOZHINJIPARAMBIL VEEDU, P.O.MEZHATHUR, KODANADU.

¶15

SAKKEER, S/O.MUHAMMED KUTTY, AGED 32 OTTIRI VEEDU, P.O.MEZHATHUR, KODANADU.

¶16

BY ADV. SRI.IEANS.C.CHAMAKKALA SRI.S.ASHOK KUMAR.

¶17

CRL.M.C.NO. 540/2008

¶18

: 2 :

¶19

RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT:

¶20

¶21

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING S.I. OF POLICE, THRITHALA POLICE STATION.

¶22

VINEESH, S/O.CHANDRAN @ RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 27 YEARS, OTTIRI HOUSE, KODANADU DESOM, MEZHATHUR AMSOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK.

¶23

VIJEESH, S/O.CHANDRAN @ RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 25 YEARS, OTTIRI HOUSE, KODANADU DESOM, MEZHATHUR AMSOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK.

¶24

BY ADV. SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.KRISHNA PRASAD. S

¶25

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

V. RAMKUMAR , J.

¶27

==========================

¶28

CRL.M.C. No. 540 of 2008

¶29

========================== Dated this the 7^th day of March, 2008.

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

The petitioners, 7 in number, stand charge sheeted by the Thrithala police in crime No. 73/2005 for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323 and 324 r/w Section 149 IPC. The case has been taken on file by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pattambi as C.C. No. 191/2005. Pending the said case, the parties have settled the matter and have filed Crl.M.A. No. 1072/2008 under Section 320 IPC for compounding the said offences. Out of the aforementioned offences, those punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324 alone are compoundable. Hence, the prayer for compounding those offences will stand allowed and the petitioners will stand acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 324 IPC in view of Section 320(8) Cr.P.C.

¶32

Since the compoundable offences have already been compounded, the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147 and 149 IPC cannot survive because it cannot be said that the 7

¶33

CRL.M.C. NO. 540/2008 : 2:

¶34

accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 327. Hence, C.C No. 191/2005 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pattambi with regard to those offences shall also stand quashed.

¶35

This Crl.M.C is disposed of as above.

¶36

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

¶37

¶38

CRL.M.C. NO. 540/2008 : 3:

Vineesh v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vineesh v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sobhana Vs Mohanan

Mathew Vs Jessintha

Tomy Thomas Vs Consulate General of India

Suraj Abraham Vs State of Kerala

K.P.Sankarankutty and Others Vs K.P.Ammalukutty Amma and Another

Vineesh & Others Vs State of Kerala & Another