Allowed

Rajeev M.Nair v. v.K.Rajeev Kumar

Kerala HC29 Oct 2010Crl.MC/4076/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings. Relying on Madan Mohan Abbot, the Court held that when personal offences are settled amicably by the complainant, it is not in the interest of justice to continue prosecution.

What did the court decide?

Criminal case C.C.208/2007 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Pathanamthitta was quashed.

Rajeev M.Nair Vs v.K.Rajeev Kumar — 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 29TH OCTOBER 2010 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1932

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 4076 of 2010()

¶6

------------------------------(CC.208/2007 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA CRIME NO.664/2007 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION)

¶7

PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED

¶8

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

¶9

1. RAJEEV M.NAIR, S/O. MOHANAN NAIR, SREEKRISHNA VILASOM VEETTIL, VALANCHUZHI, PRAMADOM VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. (ACCUSED NO.1)

¶10

2. MOHANAN NAIR, SREEKRISHNA VILASOM VEETTIL, VALANCHUZHI, PRAMADOM VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. (ACCUSED NO.2)

¶11

3. M.V.PRADEEP,

¶12

MEPPURATHU VEETTIL, VALANCHUZHI, PRAMADOM VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. (ACCUSED NO.3)

¶13

4. JINU G.NATH,

¶14

KAYATHUMKIRATTU VEETTIL, PALAMAROOR KARAYIL, VALANCHUZHI, PRAMADOM VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. (ACCUSED NO.4)

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH

¶16

RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT/STATE

¶17

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

¶18

1. V.K.RAJEEV KUMAR, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNAN NAIR, KRISHNANIKETHAN VEEDU, VALANCHUZHI, PRAMADOM VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 645.

¶19

....2/-..

¶20

...2...

¶21

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION.

¶22

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

¶23

R1 BY ADV. SRI.PRAKASH KESAVAN

¶24

R2 & R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.I.V.PRAMOD

¶25

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

SVS/

¶27

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

¶28

CRL.M.C.NO.4076 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 29^th October, 2010

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

Petitioners are the accused and

¶31

first respondent, the de facto complainant

¶32

in C.C.208/2007 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Pathanamthitta, taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 323 and 326 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, on Annexure-1 final report. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that entire disputes were settled amicably and consequent to the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution.

¶33

First respondent appeared through a counsel and filed an affidavit stating that

¶34

Crmc 4076/10

¶35

¶36

entire disputes were settled amicably and

¶37

consequent to the settlement, he has no

¶38

objection for terminating the proceedings.

¶39

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶40

petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

¶41

Annexure-1 final report establishes that the offences alleged against the petitioners are purely personal in nature against the first respondent. Offence under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code is alleged on the ground that petitioners hit first respondent on his leg and caused fracture of the right heel. The affidavit filed by the first respondent establishes that he has

¶42

settled all the disputes with the petitioners.

¶43

As held by the Apex Court in Madan

¶44

Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19

¶45

Crmc 4076/10

¶46

¶47

(SC) when the offences alleged are purely personal in nature and the affidavit filed by the first respondent establishe that he has

¶48

settled the entire disputes with the petitioners, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution, as ultimately, even if petitioners are to be tried, there is no likelihood of a successful prosecution.

¶49

Petition is allowed. C.C.208/2007 on the

¶50

file of Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court,

¶51

Pathanamthitta is quashed.

¶52

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE.

¶53

uj.

Rajeev M.Nair v. v.K.Rajeev Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev M.Nair v. v.K.Rajeev Kumar

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

Smitha and Others Vs State of Kerala and Another

Sunil Kumar Vs Reena

Biju @ Mathew Vs the Forest Range Officer, Kottiyoor

Dr.Sathy M.Pillai & 3 Ors. Vs Sarma and Another

John Kurian Vs State of Kerala and Another

Beevathu Vs State of Kerala