Allowed

Syam v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Oct 2010Crl.MC/1351/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court of Kerala allowed the petition and quashed the trial. The court held that since the offences were purely personal and the injured parties had amicably settled the dispute, continuing the prosecution was not in the interest of justice, following Madan Mohan Abbot.

What did the court decide?

The criminal case (S.C. No. 246/2009) was quashed, discharging the accused persons.

Syam Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2010 / 29TH ASWINA 1932

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1351 of 2010()

¶6

SC NO. 246/2009 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, IRINJALAKUDE

¶7

PETITIONERS / ACCUSED :

¶8

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

¶9

1. SYAM K.S., S/O. SREENIVASAN, KARAYIL HOUSE, NEAR AYYAPPANKAVU TEMPLE, MANALOOR.P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

2. VAHID.R.J. S/O. JALALUDHIN, RAYAMMARAKKAR HOUSE, ENAMAVU, VENGITANGU VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶11

3. NISHAD.C.S., S/O. SHAMSUDIN, CHOKAKKAILLATH HOUSE, POOJIYAM THURUTHU, EDASSERY, THALIKULAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶12

4. SAJITH, S/O. SASI, MULAMOOTUMEL HOUSE, MALAYINKEEZH VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA VILLAGE.

¶13

5. PUNEETH.P.P., S/O. PRASANNAN, POTTEKKAT HOUSE, MAMBULLY DESOM, KANDASSANKADAVU, MANALLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶14

6. ANEESH BHARATHAN.V.,

¶15

S/O. BHARATHAN, VADAKKOOT HOUSE, KAIPILLY EAST, VELUTHUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶16

7. DILEESH.M.B. S/O. BALAN,

¶17

MUTHIRIPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANGATTUKARA DESOM PADIYAM VILLAGE, ANTHIKKAD.P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶18

8. PRAVEEN K.P. S/O. PRASAD, KUZHIKATTIL HOUSE, KANDAMKULAM.P.O., METHALA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶19

BY ADV. SRI. V. BINOY RAM

¶20

...2/-

¶21

Crl.MC.No. 1351 of 2010() -2-

¶22

RESPONDENTS / COMPLAINANT / DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶23

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

¶24

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶25

2. AKHIL.E.G., S/O. GIREESH, EZHUVAPADY HOUSE, PORATHOOR DESOM, ALAPPAD VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶26

3. SANULAL K.M. S/O. HARILAL, KUNNATH HOUSE PORATHUR DESOM, ALAPPAD VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶27

4. NITHIN K.P., S/O. PRATHAPAN, KAKKANATTU HOUSE, ALAPPAD VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶28

5. ANAS P.B., S/O. BADARUDDIN, PUTHUVEETTIL HOUSE, AZHIMAVU DESOM, KIZHUPILLIKARA VILLAGE,THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶29

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM R2 TO R5 BY ADV. SRI. B.V. BALAKRISHNAN

¶30

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

¶32

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

¶33

CRL.M.C.NO.1351 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 21^st October, 2010

¶34

O R D E R

¶35

Petitioners are the accused and

¶36

respondents 2 to 5, the de facto complainants and the injured in S.C.246/2009 on the file of Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Irinjalakuda, taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 308 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. Prosecution case is that on 2/7/2008 at about 1.45 p.m, petitioners formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common object to cause hurt to members of All India Students Federation, armed with deadly weapons, attacked respondents 2 to 5 and inflicted injuries on them and thereby committed the

¶37

Crmc 1351/10

¶38

¶39

offences. Though offence under Section 308 of Indian Penal Code is alleged, no grievous hurt was caused and only hurt using dangerous weapon was caused. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings before the learned Magistrate contending that entire disputes were settled amicably and consequent to the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution.

¶40

Respondents 2 to 5 appeared through

¶41

a counsel and filed separate affidavits stating that entire disputes were settled amicably and consequent to the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution.

¶42

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and respondents 2 to 5 and learned

¶43

Public Prosecutor were heard.

¶44

Crmc 1351/10

¶45

¶46

Annexure-2 final report establishes

¶47

that offences alleged against the petitioners

¶48

are purely personal in nature against respondents 2 to 5, who are members of rival student organisation. Affidavits filed by respondents 2 to 5 establish that entire disputes with the petitioners were settled amicably and consequent to the settlement, respondents 2 to 5 have no grievance against the petitioners. As held by the Apex Court in

¶49

Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3)

¶50

KLT 19 (SC), when offences are purely personal in nature and respondents 2 to 5 have settled the dispute with the petitioners and consequent to the settlement, there is no likelihood of a

¶51

successful prosecution, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Petition is allowed. S.C.246/2009 on the

¶52

Crmc 1351/10 4

¶53

file Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Irinjalakuda is quashed.

¶54

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE.

¶55

uj.

Syam v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syam v. State of Kerala

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

Mathew G Vs State of Kerala

Sanil Vs State of Kerala

M.P.Madhu Vs State of Kerala

C.O.Thomaskutty Vs State of Kerala

K.P.Tensing & Another Vs Food Inspector

Teena Elizabeth Vs State of Kerala