Allowed

Baiju v. State of Kerala and Another

Kerala HC6 Jan 2010Crl.MC/19/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the Indian Penal Code for alleged assault and obstruction, allowing the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. due to a complete amicable settlement between the petitioner and the injured second respondent, citing Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings CC.1546/2007 as against the petitioner were quashed.

Baiju Vs State of Kerala and Another — 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 WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2010 / 16TH POUSHA 1931

¶4

Crl.MC.No. 19 of 2010() ----------------------CC.1546/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOLLAM .................... (CR.NO.275/2007 OF ANCHALUMOODU POLICE STATION)

¶5

PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.1: -------------------------------------------------

¶6

BAIJU, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.UBALD, BARNA HOUSE, KUREEPUZHA, THRIKKADAVOOR, KOLLAM. BY ADVS. MR. K.SHAJ, MR.SAJJU.S.

¶7

RESPONDENT(S): STATE & CW1:

¶8

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

¶9

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

¶10

2. ABHIRAJ, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.RAJENDRAN PILLAI, NEDUNEELAM PURAYIDAM, KUREEPUZHA, THRIKKADAVOOR, KOLLAM.

¶11

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. P.A. SALIM

¶12

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

Kss

¶14

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

¶15

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

¶16

CRL.M.C.No. 19 OF 2010

¶17

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

¶18

Dated this the 6^th day of January,2010

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Petitioner is the first accused in C.C.1546/2007 on the file of Judicial First

¶21

Class Magistrate Court-I, Kollam. Second respondent is the de facto complainant who is also the injured. Prosecution case is that on 25.6.2007 at about 4-30 p.m on the belief that

¶22

second respondent had disclosed that the accused would burn AKG Club, Karipuzha in furtherance of their common intention they attacked second respondent and wrongfully restrained him and scolded using obscene words and caused grievous hurt and thereby committed the offences under sections 294(b), 341,323, and 326 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. This petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the

¶23

Crl.M.C.19/2010 2

¶24

proceedings as against the petitioner contending that entire disputes with the second respondent were settled amicably and second respondent has no grievance against the petitioner and therefore the proceedings is to be quashed. Annexures 3 and 4 affidavits of the eye witnesses were also filed to show that petitioner was not involved in the incident. Second respondent appeared through a counsel and filed an affidavit stating that the disputes with the petitioner were settled amicably and he has no grievance against the petitioner and in such circumstances, he has no objection for quashing the proceedings.

¶25

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

¶26

Annexure A1 final report shows that the

¶27

offences alleged against petitioner are purely personal in nature as against second respondent. The affidavit filed by second respondent

¶28

Crl.M.C.19/2010 3

¶29

establishes that there has been an amicable settlement of the disputes with the petitioner. As held by the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008(3) KLT 19 when there has been a complete settlement of the disputes with the injured and the accused, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution especially when consequent to the settlement there is no likelihood of a successful prosecution.

¶30

Petition is allowed. C.C.1546/2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kollam as against the petitioner is quashed.

¶31

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶32

tpl/-

¶33

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

SEPTEMBER,2006

Baiju v. State of Kerala and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baiju v. State of Kerala and 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

M.C.Basheer & 4 Others Vs the State of Kerala

K.P.Luka Vs State of Kerala

K.K. Bharathan Vs Plantation Corporation

Abdul Hakeem Vs Sajeena and Others

Madhusoodhanan @ Madhu Vs State of Kerala

Prasad Vs State of Kerala