Allowed

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

Kerala HC19 Oct 2009Crl.MC/3296/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, in a criminal miscellaneous petition, quashed the cognizance taken in C.C.339/2007 under Section 482 CrPC. Relying on the Madan Mohan Abbot decision, the Court held that since the dispute was amicably settled and the offences were purely personal, continuing the prosecution was not in the interest of justice.

What did the court decide?

The petition is allowed and C.C.339/2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Parappanangadi is quashed.

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

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3296 of 2009()

¶6

------------------------CC.339/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PARAPPANANGADI

¶7

.................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------1. COL.VIJAYAN, S/O.KUTTIKRISHNAN NAIR, `KAVYAM', ARIYALLUR, VALLIKUNNU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

LALU, S/O.MANU, MALAYAMPARAMBATH HOUSE, ARIYALLUR, VALLIKUNNU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

VIJAYAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, ARIYALLUR, VALLIKUNNU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

VASU, S/O.AYYAPPAN, MOOCHIKKAL HOUSE, ARIYALLUR, VALLIKUNNU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

ARAMUGHAN, S/O.APPUKUTTAN, ARIYALLUR, VALLIKUNNU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶12

SURESH @ SURENDRAN, ARIYALLUR, VALLIKUNNU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR

¶14

RESPONDENT(S): STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶15

¶16

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARAPPANANGADI POLICE STATION-THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31.

¶17

K.USHA, ADVOCATE, D/O.KUNHIRAMAN NAIR, USHA NURSARY, VALLIKUNNU, ARIYALLUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶18

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

¶21

CRL.M.C.NO. 3296 OF 2009

¶22

Dated 19^th October 2009

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

Petitioners are the accused in C.C.339/2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Parappanangadi taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 447 and 427 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, on Annexure-B final report submitted by Sub Inspector of Police, Parappanangadi. Prosecution case is that on 4/12/2006 at about 12 p.m petitioners formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and trespassed into the property of second respondent in R.S.No.89/2001 of Ariyallur village and cut and removed a jack tree worth Rs.10,000/- and thereby committed the offences. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-B final report as well as the cognizance taken contending that the entire disputes between petitioners and second respondent were amicably settled out of court and in such circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to

¶25

CRMC 3296/09

¶26

¶27

continue the proceedings.

¶28

Second respondent appeared through a counsel and also filed Annexure-C affidavit stating that the entire disputes between the petitioners and second respondent were amicably settled out of court and they have jointly decided to withdraw all pending civil litigations and also settled the disputes in this case and in such circumstances, there is no objection for quashing the proceedings.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶30

petitioners, second respondent and learned Public

¶31

Prosecutor were heard.

¶32

Annexure-B final report establishes that

¶33

the offences alleged against the petitioners are purely personal in nature, as against the second respondent and her properties. In such circumstances, when there is an amicable settlement of the disputes, 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 proceedings. From the settlement between the parties and Annexure-C affidavit filed by the de facto complainant, second respondent, it is clear that even if, petitioners are

¶34

CRMC 3296/09

¶35

to be tried there is no likelihood of a conviction. It would only result in unnecessary waste of valuable time of the court. In such circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution.

¶36

Petition is allowed. C.C.339/2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Parappanangadi is quashed.

¶37

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE.

¶38

uj.

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Col.Vijayan & Others v. the State of Kerala & 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

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

Jeemon & Others Vs State of Kerala & Others