Special Public Prosecutor sought quashing of pending criminal proceedings against petitioner Santhosh. High Court allowed petition, quashing Long Pending File No. 16/2008 citing amicable settlement, acquittal of other accused, and lack of fruitful purpose of trial.
Long Pending File No. 16/2008 filed against the petitioner is quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2010 / 18TH POUSHA 1931
Crl.MC.No. 61 of 2010()
---------------------------------L.P.NO.16/08 IN CC NO.63/07 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT V (SPECIAL COURT FOR MARK LIST CASES), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PETITIONER(S): (A2)
------------------------------SANTHOSH, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.PRABHAKARAN, RESIDING AT T.C.16/699, KULAM NIKATHIYA VEEDU, JAGATHY WARD, THYCAUD VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. MR.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR
RESPONDENT(S):
2. LIJU MON @ MANIKUTTAN, (CW1), S/O.MANIYAN, T.C.16/10, KULAM NIKATHIYA VEEDU, JAGATHY WARD, THYCAUD VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3. PREMAN (CW2), S/O.APPU, T.C.16/786, PRASANNA BHAVAN, NEAR JAGATHY BRIDGE, JAGATHY WARD, THYCAUD VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
4. SHIBU @ RAMU, (CW3), S/O.SOMAN, T.C.16/10, KULAM NIKATHIYA VEEDU, JAGATHY WARD, THYCAUD VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
5. DEEPU, (CW4), S/O.SUKUMARAN, CHOORAKKAMOOLA PANAYIL VEETIL, T.C.16/94, JAGATHY BUND ROAD, JAGATHY WARD, THYCAUD VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. P.A. SALIM R2 TO R5 BY ADV. MR.SHAJIN S.HAMEED
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Kss
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
------------------------------------------ Crl.M.C.NO.61 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated 8th January 2010
O R D E R
Petitioner was the second
accused in C.C.437/2002 on the file of
Judicial First Class Magistrate-V, Thiruvananthapuram. Prosecution case is that on 12/3/2007 at 7.15 p.m all the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of causing hurt to respondents 2 to 5 and armed with dangerous weapons, attacked them and caused hurt and thereby committed offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324 and 452 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of Arms Act. As the petitioner and seventh accused were
2
Crmc 61/10
absconding case as against them were re-filed
as C.C.63/2007 and others were tried. By Annexure-B judgment accused 1,3 to 6 and 8 were acquitted. As presence of accused 2 and 7 could
not be procured, case against them was subsequently transferred to the file of long pending register and is now pending as L.P.16/2008. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the case, as against the petitioner contending that entire disputes with respondents 2 to 5 were settled amicably and in view of the settlement,
it is not in the interest of justice to
continue the prosecution.
a counsel and filed separate affidavits stating that entire disputes with the petitioner were settled amicably and consequent to the
Crmc 61/10
3
settlement, they have no subsisting grievance against the petitioner and hence they have no objection for quashing the proceedings.
Public Prosecutor were heard.
second accused all other accused were already acquitted after recording the evidence. It also establishes that offences alleged against the
accused are purely personal in nature as against respondents 2 to 5, the injured in the case. Affidavits filed by respondents 2 to 5 establish that there has been complete settlement of the disputes with the petitioner. As held by the Apex court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19 (SC) it is
4
Crmc 61/10
clear that consequent to the settlement, even if petitioner is to be directed to undergo the ordeal of a trail, no fruitful purpose will be served and it would only result in unnecessary waste of valuable time of the court. In such circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution.
Petition is allowed. L.P.16/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-V, Thiruvananthapuram as against petitioner is quashed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE.
uj.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings under Cr.MC. No. 63 of 2007 should be quashed in view of the complete settlement of disputes between the petitioner and respondents.
Whether continued prosecution serves the interest of justice when other co-accused were acquitted.
Whether Section 482 of CrPC can be invoked to quash pending criminal proceedings based on settlement.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of PunjabReferred¶40
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19 (SC)
8 provisions across 3 enactments
Santhosh
The State of Kerala
Liju Mon @ Manikkuttan
Preman
Shibu @ Ramu
Deeru
M. Sasidharan Nambiar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
