Allowed

Jeemon & Others v. State of Kerala & Others

Kerala HC19 Oct 2009Crl.MC/3275/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed joint criminal miscellaneous petitions filed by accused persons to quash two connected FIRs (1242/2009 and 1243/2009). Relying on the amicable settlement of disputes and the precedent Madan Mohan Abbot, the court held quashing was in the interest of justice as the offences were purely personal in nature.

What did the court decide?

Crime No. 1242/2009 and Crime No. 1243/2009 of Hill Palace Police Station, Thripunithura were quashed.

Jeemon & Others Vs State of Kerala & Others — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2009 / 27TH ASWINA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3275 of 2009() ------------------------CRIME NO.1243/09 OF HILL PALACE P.S, THRIPUNITHURA

¶5

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶6

--------------1. JEEMON,S/O.DINESHAN,AGED 27 YEARS, THARAYIL HOUSE,THEKKUMBAGOM,THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶7

SANDEEP,S/O.SOMAN,AGED 23 YEARS, KUPPAKATTU HOUSE,MARADU VILLAGE,THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶8

DINESHAN,S/O.NANU,AGED 52 YEARS, THARAYIL HOUSE,THEKKUMBAGOM,THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

SREEMON,S/O.DINESHAN,AGED 24 YEARS, THARAYIL HOUSE,THEKKUMBAGOM,THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.PREMSON PAUL

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

¶13

STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY P.PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM.

¶14

U.N.AJITH,S/O.NARAYANAN,AGED 48 YEARS, URALIL HOUSE,THEKKUMBAGOM,THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶15

INDRAJITH.V.A,S/O.U.N.AJITH, AGED 21 YEARS,URALIL HOUSE,THEKKUMBAGOM, THRIPUNITHURA,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶16

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI R2 & R3 BY ADV.PAUL.K.VARGHESE

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/10/2009, ALONG WITH CRMC NO. 3293 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

¶19

CRL.M.C.NO.3275 & 3293 OF 2009

¶20

Dated 19^th October 2009

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Petitioners in Crl.M.C.3275/2009 are the accused in crime No.1243/2009 of Hill Palace police station, Thripunithura registered for the offences under Sections 324 and 294(b) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-I FIR. Respondents 2 and 3 are the de facto complaint and the injured in that case. Petitioners in Crl.M.C.3293/2009 are the accused in crime No.1242/2009 of Hill Palace police station registered under Annexure-I FIR for the offence under Section 294(b), 326 and 506(ii) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Second respondent is the de facto complainant. Though respondents 3 to 5 were impleaded therein who are petitioners 2 to 4 in Crl.M.C.3275/2009, they are neither accused nor the injured or de facto

¶23

complainant in crime No.1242/2009. Evidently as one is the main case and the other its counter case, the other accused in the main case was also impleaded in the petition, filed to quash the counter case. In fact respondents 3 to 5 are unnecessary parties in

CRMC 3275 & 3293/09

the said petition.

These petitions are filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the respective cases pending investigation. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that after investigation final reports were filed subsequent to the filing of these petitions though they were not taken cognizance. Petitions are filed contending that consequent to the amicable settlement of the disputes between the parties, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution.

¶28

De facto complainant and the injured in crime No.1243/2009, who are respondents 2 and 3 therein appeared through a counsel in Crl.M.C.3275/2009 and also filed affidavit stating that they have settled the disputes and in view of the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. In Crl.M.C.3293/2009 second respondent, the injured de facto complainant in crime No.1242/2009 also filed an affidavit to the effect that consequent to the amicable settlement of the disputes there is no objection for quashing the proceedings.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for respective petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

¶30

CRMC 3275 & 3293/09

¶31

¶32

From the records produced, it is clear that crime No.1242/2009 and 1243/2009 of Hill Palace Police Station are connected cases. One is the main case and the other its counter case. First petitioner in Crl.M.C.3275/2009 is the accused in crime No.1242/2009. Similarly respondents 2 and 3 in crl.M.C.3275/2009 are the petitioners in Crl.M.C.3293/2009, and they are the accused in crime No.1242/2009. Crime No.1242/2009 is registered for committing offence against first petitioner in Crl.M.C.3275/2009. Crime No.1243/2009 is filed for committing offence as against petitioners in Crl.M.C. No.3293/2009. In such circumstances, when the entire disputes were settled and offences alleged are purely personal in nature as against them, as held by the Apex court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19 (SC), it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecutions.

¶33

Petitions are allowed. Crime No.1242/2009 and 1243/2009 of Hill Palace Police Station, Thripunithura are quashed.

¶34

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE.

¶35

uj.

Jeemon & Others v. State of Kerala & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeemon & Others v. State of Kerala & Others

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

K.a.Chandran Vs the Commissioner of Police and Others

Mathew Thomas and 5 Others Vs State of Kerala and Another

Shaji Abraham Vs State of Kerala

Georgekutty Joseph Vs the State of Kerala

V.C.Muhammed Ali Vs the Sub Inspector of Police, Perinthalma

Col.Vijayan & Others Vs the State of Kerala & Another