Allowed

Sudheer Kumar v. T.P.Sajeendra Babu

Kerala HC22 Oct 2010Crl.MC/3784/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings. Finding that the dispute was purely personal and had been amicably settled between the accused and the complainants, the Court held that continuing prosecution was not in the interest of justice. The specific allegation of attempt to murder was also dismissed as unsupported by the wound certificate.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings under S.C.352/2008 on the file of Assistant Sessions Court, Kozhikode, were quashed.

Sudheer Kumar Vs T.P.Sajeendra Babu — 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

FRIDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2010 / 30TH ASWINA 1932

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3784 of 2010()

¶6

**------------------------SC.352/2008 of SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE*

¶7

*THE NAME OF THE LOWER COURT IS CORRECTED AS “ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE” - AS PER ORDER DATED 15/10/2010 IN CRL.M.A.NO.6482/2010.

¶8

(CRIME NO.285/2007 OF KASABA POLICE STATION)

¶9

PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED:

¶10

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

¶11

1. SUDHEER KUMAR, S/O. BHASKARAN, AGED 37 YEARS, VADAKKE PUVATHUR HOUSE, KAKKODI.P.O., KOZHIKODE.

¶12

2. DIBEESH, S/O. BALAN, AGED 21 YEARS, THACHATTU HOUSE, BEYPORE.P.O.,KOZHIKODE.

¶13

3. GOKULDAS, S/O. SAHADEVAN, AGED 25 YEARS, MURINGATH HOUSE, BEYPORE.P.O.,KOZHIKODE.

¶14

4. ANILKUMAR, S/O. MANI, AGED 32 YEARS, VAPPUNGARA HOUSE, KUTTIKKATTOOR.P.O.,KOZHIKODE.

¶15

5. PUSHPARARAJ.M, S/O. NARAYANAN KUTTY NAIR, AGED 36 YEARS, KIZHEKKEDATH THAZHAM HOUSE, MORIKARA.P.O., KAKKODI,KOZHIKODE.

¶16

6. SHANI.C., S/O. SREEDHARAN, AGED 33 YEARS, CHATTIKAL HOUSE, CHAKUM KADAVU, PANNIYANKARA.P.O.,KOZHIKODE.

¶17

BY ADVS. SMT.K.A.ANGEL TREENA, SMT.ARLISS TRENCY ANTONY.

..2/-

Kss

..2....

CRMC.NO.3784/2010

¶22

RESPONDENT(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶23

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

¶24

1. T.P.SAJENDRA BABU, S/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 56 YEARS, THAMPUANPADIKKAL HOUSE, KALOOR ROAD, VALAYANAD, KOZHIKODE.

¶25

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KASABA POLICE STATION,KOZHIKODE.

¶26

3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶27

*ADDL.R4 IMPLEADED:

¶28

R4. MEENAKUMARI, W/O.SAJEENDRA BABU, AGED 47 YEARS, THAMPURANPADIKKAL HOUSE, KALOOR ROAD, VALAYANAD, KOZHIKODE.

¶29

**(ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 22/10/2010 IN CRL.M.A.NO.6668/2010 IN CRMC.NO.3784/2010)*

¶30

R2 & R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. I.V. PRAMOD ADDL.R4 BY ADV. SRI.SAKIR.K.H.

¶31

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

Kss

¶33

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

¶34

--------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.3784 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 22^nd October, 2010

¶35

O R D E R

¶36

Petitioners are the accused and

¶37

respondents 1 and 4 are the de facto complainant and the injured in S.C.352/2008 on the file of Assistant Sessions Court, Kozhikode taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 324, 326, 308, 120 B and 427 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. Prosecution case is that on 24/8/2007 at about 11.20 p.m

¶38

petitioners formed themselves into an

¶39

unlawful assembly with the common object of causing grievous hurt to respondents 1 and 4 and in furtherance of their common object, armed with deadly weapons committed rioting and trespassed into the

¶40

¶41

Crmc 3784/10

¶42

residential house of first respondent, assaulted him and caused grievous hurt to the first respondent by causing fracture to his wrist and also caused hurt to the fourth respondent, his wife. It is alleged that if fourth respondent has not evaded, when she was beaten, aimed at her and it had landed on her head, death would have been caused. Hence it is alleged that petitioners committed offences including the offence under Section 308 of Indian Penal Code. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to qush the proceedings pending before the learned Sessions Judge, contending that subsequently entire disputes were settled amicably with respondents 1 and 4 and they have no objection for quashing the proceedings.

¶43

Respondents 1 and 4 appeared

¶44

Crmc 3784/10

¶45

¶46

through a counsel and filed separate

¶47

affidavits stating that they have settled all the disputes with the petitioners amicably and consequent to the settlement they have no

¶48

subsisting grievance against the petitioners and hence they have no objection for quashing the proceedings.

¶49

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, respondents 1 and 4 and learned

¶50

Public Prosecutor were heard.

¶51

Though an offence under Section 308

¶52

of Indian Penal Code is alleged based on the case that if fourth respondent has not evaded, when she was hit on her head, death would have been caused, Annexure-B wound certificate show

¶53

that she does not sustain any external injury and had only complained pain over the right shoulder, where the doctor found only

¶54

¶55

Crmc 3784/10

¶56

tenderness. Annexure-D wound certificate of the

¶57

first respondent shows that there was multiple contusion with minor laceration on the left

¶58

forearm and X-ray shows that there is comminuted fracture of fifth metacarpel. In such circumstances, it is clear that an offence under Section 308 is not attracted. The final

¶59

report establishes that offences alleged against the petitioners are purely personal in nature against respondents 1 and 4. First respondent sustained only fracture of

¶60

metacarpel. Affidavit filed by respondents 1

¶61

and 4 establish that entire disputes were

¶62

settled amicably with the petitioners. As held

¶63

by the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State

¶64

of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19 (SC) , when the

¶65

offences alleged are purely personal in nature and there has been settlement of the disputes

¶66

¶67

Crmc 3784/10

¶68

between the petitioners and respondents 1 and 4, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution as ultimately, there is no likelihood of a successful prosecution.

¶69

Petition is allowed. S.C.352/2008 on the file of Assistant Sessions Court, Kozhikode is quashed.

¶70

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE.

¶71

uj.

Sudheer Kumar v. T.P.Sajeendra Babu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudheer Kumar v. T.P.Sajeendra Babu

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

C.O.Thomaskutty Vs State of Kerala

Syam Vs State of Kerala

K.P.Tensing & Another Vs Food Inspector

Johny Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Brien Oomman Vs State of Kerala

Aniyan Kunju Daniel Vs State of Kerala