Allowed

Kannan v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Jun 2009Crl.MC/1675/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala quashed a criminal case (CC No. 105/2008) filed under IPC clauses 143, 147, 148, 447, 323, 324 r/w 149. The court held that since disputes were settled and the prosecution could not prove a case, continuing the trial would waste judicial time despite the offences being non-compoundable.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Case No. 105/2008 filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Moovattupuzha, was quashed.

Kannan Vs the State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

¶3

FRIDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2009 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1931

¶4

Crl.MC.No. 1675 of 2009()

¶5

--------------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO. 1 TO 5

¶7

---------------------------------------------

¶8

1. KANNAN, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, RESIDING AT AATTAMOLAYIL HOUSE, VALAKOM VILLAGE, KUNNAIKKAL KARA, MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶9

2. SHIBU, AGED 33 YEARS,

¶10

S/O GOPALAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT MATTAKOTTU HOUSE, VALAKOM VILLAGE, KUNNAIKKAL KARA, MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶11

3. ANIL, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. THANKAPPAN NAIR, RESIDING AT CHERAIKKAYIL KUDIYIL HOUSE, VALAKOM VILLAGE, KUNNAIKKAL KARA, MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶12

4. RENJITH KUMAR, AGED 29 YEARS,

¶13

S/O. PADMANABHAN NAIR, RESIDING AT PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, VALAKOM VILLAGE, KUNNAIKKAL KARA, MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶14

5. RAVEENDRAN, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. KARUNAKARAN NAIR, RESIDING AT MATTAKKOTTU HOUSE, VALAKOM VILLAGE, KUNNAIKKAL KARA, MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR

¶16

SRI.P.DALBI EMMANUEL

¶17

RESPONDENT(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANTS

¶18

---------------------------------------------------

¶19

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR, MUVATTUPUZHA IN CR. 1060/2007.

¶20

2. RAVI, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. KUNJU, RESIDING AT PUTHENVEETTIL HOUSE, KUNNAKAL.P.O., VALAKOM VILLAGE, KUNNAIKKAL KARA, MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶21

ADV. SRI.O.S.JAFARKHAN FOR R2

¶22

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: SRI.AMJAD ALI

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶25

CR.M.C NO.1675 OF 2009

¶26

Dated this the 19^th day of June 2009 -------------------------------------

¶27

ORDER

¶28

Petitioners are the accused in CC No.105/2008

¶29

of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court Moovattupuzha. The case alleged against the petitioners is that they committed offences under Section 143, 147, 148, 447, 323 and 324 R/w Section

¶30

149 of Indian Penal Code. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the case contending that disputes of second respondent, the defacto complainant and the petitioners were settled. Criminal application 2765/09 is filed by petitioners and second respondent jointly for permission to compound the offences. As the offence under Section 143, 147 and 148 can not be compounded, permission to compound offences can not be granted.

¶31

Cr.MC.No.1675/2009

¶32

¶33

2. Second respondent appeared through his counsel. The learned counsel appearing for the

¶34

second respondent submitted that as stated in the joint application his disputes with the petitioners

¶35

was amicably settled and there is no necessity to proceed with the case. If petitioners are to be tried it would only result in waste of judicial time.

¶36

3. The learned public prosecutor submitted that statement of the injured was subsequently taken and it was revealed that the matter has been settled.

¶37

4. The submission of the learned counsel

¶38

appearing for the petitioners, second respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor establishes that the disputes of second respondent with the

¶39

Cr.MC.No.1675/2009 3

¶40

petitioners were amicably settled out of court and

¶41

second respondent has no intention to depose against the petitioners. Prosecution can establish that offences alleged are purely personal against the second respondent and no public interest is involved. In view of the settlement between the parties even if petitioners are to undergo the ordeal of a trial, there is no chance of a successful prosecution. As a result, even if the ordeal of a trial is undergone, petitioners can not be convicted. Therefore, it would result only in waste of valuable time of the court which could be utilized for better purpose. In such a circumstance C.C 105/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Moovattupuzha is

¶42

quashed.

¶43

VDV

¶44

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE

¶45

Cr.MC.No.1675/2009 4

¶46

vdv

Kannan v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kannan v. the State of Kerala

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

Geo Paul Vs State of Kerala

G.Gigi Vs State of Kerala

N.Ramankutty Nair Vs E.S.I. Corporation

Venugopal and Others Vs E.K.Padmini and Others

Jose George Vs State of Kerala

P.v.Raghavan Achari Vs Puthiyakandam Gunavathi Action Committee