Allowed

Aneesh and Another v. State of Kerala and Others

Kerala HC11 Mar 2010Crl.MC/568/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings under Sections 308, 326, and 324 IPC read with Section 32 IPC, holding that since the disputes were amicably settled and the offences were personal in nature, continuing prosecution was not in the interest of justice.

What did the court decide?

C.P.54/2005 pending as L.P.388/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Chengannur is quashed.

Aneesh and Another Vs State of Kerala and Others — Dowry and Cruelty | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2010 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1931

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 568 of 2010()

¶6

----------------------------------LP.388/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, CHENGANNUR (CP.54/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, CHENGANNUR)

¶7

PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.1 & 2

¶8

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

¶9

1. ANEESH, S/O.WILLIAMS, KAKKANATTEZHATHU HOUSE, ENNAKKADU MURI, ENNAKKADU VILLAGE.

¶10

2. WILLIAMS @ PRABHAKARA PANICKER -DO-

¶11

BY ADV. MR.UNNI. K.K. (EZHUMATTOOR)

¶12

RESPONDENTS/STATE,CW1 & 2

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

2. YESUDAS, S/O. THOBIAS, MANNUMUTTATHU HOUSE, ENNAKKATTU MURI, ENNAKKATTU VILLAGE.

¶16

3. DUSHYANTHAN, S/O. DASAN, LAKSHAMVEEDU COLONY, ENNAKKATTU MURI, ENNAKKATTU VILLAGE.

¶17

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.S.U. NAZAR. R2 & R3 BY ADV. MR.T.P.PRADEEP.

¶18

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

¶19

rs.

¶20

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

¶21

CRL.M.C.NO.568 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated 11^th March 2010

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Petitioners are the accused and

¶24

respondents 2 and 3, the injured de facto complainants in C.P.54/2005 now pending as L.P.388/2008 on the file of Judicial First

¶25

Class Magistrate-II, Chengannur, taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 308, 326 and 324 read with Section 32 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-A final

¶26

report. Prosecution case is that on 12/8/2004 at about 10.15 a.m, petitioners in furtherance of their common intention, due to previous enmity with the second

¶27

respondent, at the courtyard of their house, with a sword stick caused grievous hurt to the head of second respondent and

¶28

Crmc 568/2010

¶29

¶30

also caused grievous hurt to third respondent by inflicting injury with a sword stick and thereby committed the offence. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that entire disputes were amicably settled and consequent to the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution.

¶31

Respondents 2 and 3 appeared through a counsel and filed separate affidavits stating that they have amicably settled all the disputes with the petitioners and they have no subsisting grievance against them and consequent to the settlement they have no

¶32

objection for quashing the proceedings.

¶33

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶34

petitioners, respondents 2 and 3 and learned

¶35

Public Prosecutor were heard.

¶36

Crmc 568/2010

¶37

¶38

Affidavits filed by respondents 2

¶39

and 3 establish that entire disputes with the petitioners were amicably settled. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that

¶40

statement of respondents 2 and 3 recorded show

¶41

that there has been settlement of all the disputes. Learned Public Prosecutor also made available the case diary. The wound certificate shows that injury sustained by second respondent is an incised wound at the dorsem of right hand and fracture of the second

¶42

knuckle of the right hand. So also injury sustained by the third respondent is incised wound above the left ear, muscle deep. Apart from the incised wound on the left forearm there was also muscle deep.

¶43

When the disputes with petitioners

¶44

are admittedly settled by respondents 2 and 3

¶45

¶46

Crmc 568/2010

¶47

and the offences alleged against petitioners are purely personal in nature as against respondents 2 and 3, as held by the Apex court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19 (SC) 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.

¶48

Petition is allowed. C.P.54/2005 now pending as L.P.388/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Chengannur is quashed.

¶49

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE.

¶50

uj.

Aneesh and Another v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aneesh and Another v. State of Kerala and Others

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

Asokan Vs State of Kerala

Mary Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

P.Murali Vs State

Janardhanan Vs S.I.of Police

Nizan.P.T.and Others Vs State of Kerala & Others

The Kannur District Ex-Servicemen Multip Vs State and Another