Allowed

Jinesh @ Kuttan v. Biju

Kerala HC3 Nov 2010Crl.MC/3930/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Section 482 CrPC by three accused persons sought quashing of the prosecution. The High Court allowed the petition, quashing Special Com plaint No. 22/2010, observing that the disputes had been settled amicably, there was no likelihood of a successful prosecution, and continuing the trial would be wasteful of time and contrary to the interest of justice

What did the court decide?

Special Complaint No. 22/2010 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Irinjalakuda, is quashed.

Jinesh @ Kuttan Vs Biju — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2010 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1932

¶3

Crl.MC.No. 3930 of 2010() ------------------------SC.22/2010 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... (CRIME NO.129/2007 OF VALAPPAD POLICE STATION,THRISSUR DISTRICT)

¶4

PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NOS.1,3 & 4:

¶5

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

¶6

1. JINESH @ KUTTAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, KAREEPADATH HOUSE, KOTHAKULAM, MANDELA ROAD, VALAPPAD VILLAGE, THRISSUR.

¶7

2. SAGEER, S/O.SHERIEF, POKKAKILATH HOUSE, ILLIKUZHI DESOM, VALAPPAD VILLAGE, THRISSUR.

¶8

3. SIVARAJU, S/O.SIVARAMAN, MADAKKAVIL HOUSE, ILLIKUZHI DESOM, VALAPPAD VILLAGE, THRISSUR.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL)

¶10

RESPONDENT(S): DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶11

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------1. BIJU, S/O.VASU, THAROTT HOUSE, KARAYAVATTOM.P.O., VALAPPAD VILLAGE, THRISSUR.

¶12

2. VIJOY, KIZHAKKEPATTU HOUSE, KARAYAVATTOM.P.O., VALAPPAD VILLAGE, THRISSUR.

¶13

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

¶14

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. I.V. PRAMOD

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Kss

¶17

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶18

Crl.M.C. No. 3930 of 2010

¶19

Dated this the 3^rd day of November, 2010.

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Petitioners are accused nos. 1, 3 and 4 in S.C.No.22/2010 on

¶22

the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Irinjalakuda. They were originally accused nos. 1,3 and 4 in S.C.No.822/2007 on the file of Additional Sessions Court, Irinjalakuda. Petitioners were absconding. Hence, the case against them was split up and refield as S.C.No.22/2010. The second accused was tried. By Annexure-B judgment dated 05.12.2009, Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge acquitted the said accused. Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the case contending that in view of the settlement of the disputes with respondents 1and 2, the defacto complainant and the injured, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution.

¶23

Respondents 1 and 2 appeared through a counsel and filed separate affidavits stating that they have settled all the disputes with the petitioners amicably and consequent to the settlement they have no subsisting grievance against the petitioners and hence they have no objection for quashing the

¶24

Crl.M.C. No. 3930 of 2010 2

¶25

proceedings.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners,

¶27

respondents 1 and 2 and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

¶28

Prosecution case, as is clear from Annexure-A final report and Annexure-B judgment in S.C.No.822/2007, is that on 16.04.2007 at about 11.30 a.m., all the accused in furtherance of their common intention to cause grievous hurt to respondents 1 and 2, with the knowledge that their act is likely to result in the death of respondents 1 and 2, trespassed into the shop room of the second respondent at Peringottukara and wrongfully restrained second respondent, beat him with iron pipes and also beat first respondent, who had tried to intervene and if first respondent had not evaded when he was hit on his head, his death would have been caused and accused also caused damage to the furniture in the shop to the tune of Rs.22,500/-. It is alleged that accused thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 448, 427 and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶29

Crl.M.C. No. 3930 of 2010 3

¶30

Annexure-B judgement shows that when the second accused was tried, including respondents 1 and 2, all the witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Affidavits filed by the respondents 1 and 2 establish that even if petitioners are to be tried, there is no likelihood of any evidence against them. Therefore, when there is no likelihood of a successful prosecution and the trial would only result in unnecessary waste of the valuable time of this Court consequent to the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution.

¶31

Petition is allowed. S.C.No.22/2010 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Irinjalakuda is quashed.

¶32

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE

¶33

Jinesh @ Kuttan v. Biju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jinesh @ Kuttan v. Biju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Vs State of Kerala

Ganeshan V.C Vs State

Kumar Vs State

Asokan B. Vs State of Kerala

D.Rajendran Vs Advocate Rajesh.B.Nair

Asim & Others Vs the S.I. of Police, Vallikunnam & Anr.