Criminal miscellaneous petition filed by the third accused in C.C.No.609/05 to quash proceedings, relying on a compromise and Supreme Court precedent. The Court observed the settlement and allowed the petition.
Crl.M.C. allowed; further proceedings in C.C.No.609/05 against the petitioner are quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 13TH MARCH 2009 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3115 of 2006()
------------------------C.C.NO.609/05 OF J.F.C.M.-I, TIRUR.
PETITIONER: 3RD ACCUSED
CHANGAMPILLY ABU YUSUF GURUKKAL, S/O.ALIKKUTTY GURUKKAL, KATTIPPARUTHY, VALANCHERRY.
BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE
RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT AND STATE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.M.KAMMAPPU FOR R2
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.5370/06 IN CRL.M.C.NO.3115/06
//DISMISSED//
13.3.09 SD/-M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.
TRUE COPY
P.A.TO JUDGE
M.C.HARI RANI, J.
----------------------------------------------------CRL.M.C.No.3115 OF 2006
----------------------------------------------------DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF MARCH, 2009
O R D E R
It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who is the 3rd accused in C.C.No.609/05 and the first respondent, who is the complainant therein, that the matter has been settled between the parties and this petition can be allowed, in the light of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nikhil
Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2008(3) KLT 769
( SC ) ) , wherein it is held that 'technicalities should not be allowed to stand in the way of Court's power to quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences, where the dispute is compromised between rival parties - Proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 on the basis of compromise”.
In the result, the submission made by both counsel is recorded and the Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings in C.C.No.609/05 on the file of the Court of J.F.C.M.-I, Tirur in pursuance of AnnexureA1 compliant as against the petitioner is quashed.
M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.
dsn
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings ought to be quashed given the settlement between the parties.
Whether technical impediments preclude the Court's power to quash non-compoundable offences upon compromise.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nikhil Merchant v. CBIReferred¶24
Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2008(3) KLT 769 (SC))
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Changampilly Abu Yusuf Gurukkal
Complainant
State of Kerala
M.C. Hari Rani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
