Partly allowed

Suresh Babu v. Prajeesh and Others

Kerala HC12 Nov 2010Crl.MC/1469/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC alleging full settlement with complainants. Court quashed proceedings for specific IPC offences but retained others unpardoned to an unimpleaded building owner.

What did the court decide?

Quashed cognizance and proceedings for offences under Sections 143, 147, 341, 323 IPC read with 149; proceedings for Sections 427, 448 IPC maintainable.

Suresh Babu Vs Prajeesh and Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1932

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1469 of 2010()

¶6

-----------------------------------CC.1442/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHAVAKKAD. CRIME NO.641/2007 OF CHAVAKKAD POLICE STATION.

¶7

PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.1 IN C.C.1442/09

¶8

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

¶9

SURESH BABU, S/O.CHANDRAN, RAMY HOUSE, MANATHALA, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND STATE

¶12

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

¶13

1. PRAJEESH, S/O.SWAMY, KUNNATH HOUSE, KADAPPURAM VILLAGE, ERATTUPUZHA DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶14

2. SANOJ, S/O.BABURAJ, PUVATHAMKANDIL VEETIL HOUSE, KADAPPURAM VILLAGE, ERATTUPUZHA DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶15

3. PEETHAMBARAN, S/O.APPU, VELUTHAVEETIL HOUSE, KADAPPURAM VILLAGE, ERATTUPUZHA DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶16

4. THE STATE OF KERALA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM.

¶17

R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEDEV

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

tss

¶20

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

¶21

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

¶22

CRL.M.C.No. 1469 OF 2010

¶23

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

¶24

Dated this the 12^th day of November,2010

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Petitioner was the first accused in

¶27

C.C.1360/2007 taken cognizance for the offence under sections 143, 147, 448, 341, 323 and 427 read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code. As petitioner and sixth accused absconded, case against them was split up and refiled as C.C.1442/2009. The remaining accused 1, 3, 4

¶28

and 5 were tried. After trial they were acquitted. First accused filed this petition under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings against him contending that entire disputes were settled amicably and consequent to the settlement, it is not in the

¶29

interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Respondents 1 to 3 are the de

¶30

facto complainants and the injured. They

¶31

Crl.M.C.1469/2010 2

¶32

appeared through a counsel and filed separate affidavits stating that they have settled entire disputes with the petitioner and as the case against accused 1, 3, 4 and 5 were settled they were acquitted in C.C.1360/2007.

¶33

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, respondents 1 to 3 and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

¶34

Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that

¶35

an offence under section 427 and 448 are also involved and the owner of the building is CW4, Srijith who was not impleaded in the petition and there is no material to show that there was settlement with the said Srijith and therefore the offence under section 427 and 448 of Indian Penal Code cannot be quashed.

¶36

There is no material to prove that there was settlement of the disputes with the owner of the building. Hence the offences under section 427 and 448 of Indian Penal code cannot be quashed. The affidavits filed by respondents 1 to 3

¶37

Crl.M.C.1469/2010 3

¶38

establish that they have settled all the disputes with the petitioner. The affidavit also establishes that case as against accused 1, 3, 4 and 5 was already tried and they were acquitted. In such circumstances as held by the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008(3) KLT 19) prosecution of the petitioner for the other offences, except the offence under section 427 and 448 of Indian Penal Code are to be quashed.

¶39

Petition is allowed in part. The cognizance taken against the petitioner and the further proceedings in C.C.1360/2007 for the offences under sections 143, 147, 341 and 323 read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code is quashed. The learned Magistrate can proceed against the petitioner for the offences under section 427 and 448 read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code.

¶40

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶41

tpl/-

¶42

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

SEPTEMBER,2006

Suresh Babu v. Prajeesh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Babu v. Prajeesh 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

Dr.Binoy Idicula Babu Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Gafoor Vs T.a.Usman and Another

Usha v. and Another Vs State of Kerala and Another

P.J.Johnson Vs the S.I. of Police, Ernakulam Town North

Smruthy Vs State of Kerala

Manikuttan Vs State of Kerala