Allowed

George v. Thomas Varghese

Kerala HC5 Oct 2010Crl.MC/4041/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings. The offenses were personal and mostly compoundable. A settlement existed between parties, and an accomplice was already acquitted due to splitting of cases. Continuing prosecution was deemed against interest of justice.

What did the court decide?

C.C.389/2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Muvattupuzha is quashed.

George Vs Thomas Varghese — 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

TUESDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2010 / 13TH ASWINA 1932

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 4041 of 2010()

¶6

CC.389/2010 OF JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA CRIME NO. 294/2007 OF PIRAVOM POLICE STATION

¶7

PETITIONER / ACCUSED :

¶8

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

¶9

GEORGE, S/O.CHACKO VARKEY, MANJAMATTATHIL HOUSE, PIRAVOM,

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS / DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND STATE :

¶12

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

¶13

1. THOMAS VARGHESE, S/O.OUSEPH VARKI, CHIRAPPURATH HOUSE, MULAKKULAM, PIRAVOM,

¶14

2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

R1 BY ADV. SRI.PREMSON PAUL R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

¶19

CRL.M.C.NO.4041 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 5^th October, 2010

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Petitioner is the accused and first

¶22

respondent, the de facto complainant in C.C.389/2010 on the file of Judicial First

¶23

Class Magistrate's Court, Muvattupuzha taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 341,

¶24

323, 294(b) and 427 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-B final report. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that entire disputes with the first respondent were settled amicably and consequent to the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Petitioner also contended that second accused was tried

¶25

by the learned Magistrate in C.C.56/2008,

¶26

after splitting up the case against the

¶27

Crmc 4041/10 2

¶28

petitioner and refiling it as C.C.389/2010, as he was absconding, as per judgment dated 19/8/2010, second accused was acquitted.

¶29

First respondent appeared through a counsel and filed an affidavit stating that it was only due to the failure of the petitioner to appear, when the case against second accused was tried, the case against petitioner was refiled, though the disputes were settled

¶30

amicably. First respondent stated that consequent to the settlement, he has no

¶31

grievance against the petitioner and therefore,

¶32

he has no objection for quashing the

¶33

proceedings.

¶34

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

¶35

Annexure-B final report establishes

¶36

that offences alleged against the petitioners

¶37

Crmc 4041/10 3

¶38

are purely personal in nature. Except offence under Section 294(b) of Indian Penal Code,

¶39

other offences are compoundable. Second accused was already tried and acquitted. Affidavit filed by the first respondent establishes that he has already settled the dispute with the petitioner and in such circumstances, there is

¶40

no likelihood of a successful prosecution.

¶41

In such circumstances, as held by

¶42

the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of

¶43

Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19 (SC) , it is not in the

¶44

interest of justice to continue the

¶45

prosecution, even if petitioner is to be tried.

¶46

Petition is allowed. C.C.389/2010 on the

¶47

file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Muvattupuzha is quashed.

¶48

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE.

¶49

uj.

George v. Thomas Varghese

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

George v. Thomas Varghese

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.B.Arun Vs Dr. K.T.Chackochan Alias Kanichal Thoman

Subair Vs the State of Kerala and Another

Vineesh Vijayan Vs State of Kerala and Another

Gopalakrishnan Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Mohammedkunhi and Others Vs State and Others

Radhakrishna Kurup Vs State of Kerala