Allowed

Saleesh and Others v. Prince and Others

ProceedINGS IN CRIMINAL COURT: Settled Dispute – Petition under Section 482 CrPC for Quashing of Proceedings

Kerala HC12 Oct 2010Crl.MC/1450/2010

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous case under Section 482 CrPC, the Kerala High Court quashed proceedings in Sessions Case 339/2009 involving offences under Sections 326, 308, and 34 IPC. The court allowed the petition as the disputes were settled by the accused and the injured parties.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 1450/2010 and Sessions Case 339/2009 were allowed and proceedings quashed.

Saleesh and Others Vs Prince and Others — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2010 / 20TH ASWINA 1932

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1450 of 2010 ()

¶6

------------------------(SC. 339/2009 of ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR)

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3

¶8

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

¶9

1. SALEESH, S/O.SULAIMAN, PERUMPILAVU HOUSE, CHIYYARAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

2. ABILASH, S/O.ARUNADHARAN, KOTTIYATTIL HOUSE, CHIYYARAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶11

3. PRINCE, S/O.JANARDHANAN, VELIYATHUPARAMBU HOUSE, CHIYYARAM POST OFFICE JUNCTION, CHIYYARAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADV. SMT.T.RESMI DAMODARAN

¶13

RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANTS & STATE

¶14

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

¶15

1. PRINCE, S/O.DAVIS, KANNAYANKANDAM HOUSE, OLLUR, MARATHAKARA, THRISSUR.

¶16

2. SIBI, S/O.MANI, KAKANADAN HOUSE, AIKKA NAGAR, CHIYYARAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR.

¶17

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

¶18

R1 & R2 ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA.

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

¶22

CRL.M.C.NO.1450 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 12^th October, 2010

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

Petitioners are the accused and

¶25

respondents 1 and 2, the de facto complainants and the injured in S.C.339/2009 on the file of Assistant

¶26

Sessions Court, Thrissur taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 326 and 308 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Prosecution case is that on 1/1/2009 at

¶27

about 1.30 a.m, first petitioner as the rider and petitioners 2 and 3 as pillion riders were proceeding in motor cycle KL-11-H.3621, and when they reached

¶28

Chiyyaram Ikya Nagar-Mariyamman Kovil Junction, respondents 1 and 2 along with Nijo were found sitting on the side of the

¶29

¶30

Crmc 1450/10

¶31

road and due to previous enmity of the first petitioner against Nijo and in furtherance of their common intention to cause grievous hurt and to cause death, inflicted injury on the head of the first respondent with a sword and when second respondent tried to save the first respondent, hurt was caused to the second respondent also and if, the sword had fallen on the neck of the first respondent, death would have been caused and thereby petitioners committed offences under Sections 326 and 308 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that entire disputes were settled with respondents 1 and 2 and in view of the settlement, it is not in the interest of

¶32

justice to continue the prosecution.

¶33

¶34

Crmc 1450/10

¶35

Respondents 1 and 2 appeared through

¶36

a counsel and filed separate affidavits

¶37

stating that they have settled all the disputes

¶38

with the petitioners and in view of the

¶39

settlement, they have no objection for quashing the proceedings.

¶40

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, respondents 1 and 2 and learned

¶41

Public Prosecutor were heard. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that disputes with the petitioners and respondents 1 and 2 were settled.

¶42

As held by the Apex Court in Madan

¶43

Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19

¶44

(SC) when offences alleged against the petitioners are purely personal in nature and there has been settlement of the disputes between the injured and the accused, it is not

¶45

¶46

Crmc 1450/10

¶47

in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution, as consequent to the settlement there is no likelihood of a successful prosecution and it would only result in

¶48

unnecessary waste of valuable time of the Court.

¶49

Petition is allowed. S.C.339/2009 on the file of Assistant Sessions Court, Thrissur is quashed.

¶50

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE.

¶51

uj.

Saleesh and Others v. Prince and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saleesh and Others v. Prince and 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

Manoj @ Maneesh Vs the State of Kerala

V.P.Narayanankutty and Others Vs Jayesh Kumar and Another

Leena Jose Vs State of Kerala

Mohanan Vs Ambikadevi

Mohandas Vs State of Kerala

G.Gopakumar Vs the Superintendent of Police and Another