Dismissed

Vk Issac & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Kerala HC2 Jun 2009Crl.MC/492/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Ernakulam dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition by accused persons seeking to quash prosecution for offences under the IPC. The court rejected the request to quash the cases despite a settlement with the injured, ruling that quashing hired gang offences would give a wrong signal detrimental to public order and criminal justice.

What did the court decide?

Petition to quash criminal proceedings was dismissed; petitioners directed to prepare for trial.

Vk Issac & Ors. Vs State of Kerala & Ors. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2009 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 492 of 2009() -----------------------AGAINST THE ORDER IN SC 973/04,232/05,SC 1020/05 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KOTTARAKKARA IN CRIME NO.162/2002 OF KADAKKAL POLICE STATION) ....................

¶3

PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED -----------------------------1. VK ISSAC @ EDISON, S/O.KUNJUKUNJU, VAZHANGOTTU PUTHEN VEEDU, MANNUR VAYALA MURI, KOTTUKKAL VILLAGE KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM. 2. SAJI @ DANI S/O.NABEESA, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU TOWN WARD PUNALUR, KOLLAM. 3. SHIBU, S/O.MUHAMMED KUNJU, ROAD HOUSE, NEAR HANGING BRIDGE, NELLIPPALLIL WARD, PUNALUR, KOLLAM. 4. SAJAN, S/O.THANKACHAN, CHARIPARAMBU PUTHEN PURAKKAL VEEDU VELUNTHURA, ETTIVA VILLAGE, PUNALUR, KOLLAM. 5. SHAN, S/O.HUSSAIN, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, HIGH SCHOOL WARD, VALAKKODU PUNALUR, KOLLAM. 6. VIPIN KUMAR, S/O.CHANDRAN NAIR VIPIN SADANAM-NEAR SN COLLEGE, PUNALUR, KOLLAM.

¶4

JOY LUKOSE, S/O.LUKOSE MANNUR KONOTHU PUTHEN VEEDU ETTIVA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM.F43668

¶5

BY ADV. SRI.SYAM J SAM

¶6

RESPONDENT(S):

¶7

¶8

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SI OF POLICE, KADAYKAL POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶9

JOHN THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS, VALIYAKARIKKATHIL, MANNUR, VAYALA MURI, KOTTUKAL VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM.

¶10

ADV. SRI.A.R.ARSHAD KHAN FOR R2

¶11

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB FOR R1

¶12

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

¶14

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

¶15

CRL.M.C.No.492 OF 2009

¶16

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

¶17

Dated this the 2nd day of June,2009

¶18

ORDER Petitioners are accused 1 to 7 in Crime No.162/2002 registered by Kadakkal Police recording the First Information Statement of second respondent the de facto complainant alleging an offences under sections 143,147,148,452,323,324,308, 109, 120B read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code. Annexure A1 final report was filed alleging that petitioners committed the offences. Petitioners are now facing trial in S.C.973/2004, 232/2005 and 1020/2005. This petition is filed by the accused under section 482 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure to quash the case contending that there was a settlement of dispute with de facto complainant, the injured second respondent. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008(3) KLT 19 (SC) it is contended that though the offences are not compoundable, they could be quashed invoking the extra ordinary powers of this court punishable under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure accepting the

¶19

Crl.M.C.492/2009

¶20

¶21

settlement of the parties.

¶22

Second respondent appeared through a counsel and

¶23

also filed an affidavit admitting the settlement and agreeing for quashing the proceedings.

¶24

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

¶25

The argument of the learned counsel is that the injuries sustained by the second respondent are not so serious as to attract Section 308 of India Penal Code and when the dispute of second respondent the injured is settled and second respondent has no intention to prosecute the case further, no purpose will be served by undergoing the ordeal of a trial except loss of valuable time of the court and in such circumstance, the case is to be quashed.

¶26

Annexure I final report submitted under section 173 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure shows that second respondent was attacked by the accused due to his enemity with the seventh petitioner and seventh petitioner procured the services of the other accused and the offences were committed. In the nature of the offences committed and the background of the case, I do not find it conducive for the administration of the justice to quash the proceedings accepting the settlement. When the

¶27

Crl.M.C.492/2009

¶28

¶29

offence is allegedly committed by a hired gang procured by one of the accused and subsequent settlement with the injured if accepted and the criminal proceedings are to be quashed, it would give a wrong signal that inspite of commission of grave offence the perpetrators of the crime could escape from the clutches of law by subsequently procuring a settlement with the injured by threat or inducement. If such an unhealthy and dangerous trend is to be emerged, it would be most detrimental to the public order, the criminal justice system and for the administration of criminal justice. As held by the Apex Court in Manoj Sharma v. State (2008 (4) KLT 417) an offence like Section 302,307 or 397 cannot be quashed based on the settlement with the injured.

¶30

To quash a criminal case pending before the court invoking the power under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, it must be necessary either to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure the ends of justice. When the quashing of the case is not in the interest of justice and in fact is against the interest of justice, the pending Sessions Cases against the petitioners cannot be quashed as sought for.

¶31

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners then submitted that there may be a direction to the Sessions

¶32

Crl.M.C.492/2009 4

¶33

Court to dispose the cases expeditiously. It is for the petitioners to get ready for trial. Petitioners are at liberty to move the Sessions Court for an expeditious trial of the cases. If moved Sessions Court to dispose the cases without delay.

¶34

Petition is dismissed.

¶35

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶36

tpl/-

¶37

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶38

W.P.(C).NO. /06

¶39

--------------------JUDGMENT