Dismissed

Jomon v. Valsamma Thomas

Kerala HC14 Feb 2012Crl.MC/425/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition under S. 482 CrPC seeking quashal of proceedings for offences including assault and insult, the High Court of Kerala rejected the plea of settlement. However, acknowledging the delay, the court directed the trial court to dispose of the case within six months.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; direction to trial court to dispose of the case within 6 months.

Jomon Vs Valsamma Thomas — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE. P.S.GOPINATHAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/25TH MAGHA 1933

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 425 of 2012 ()

¶6

CC.531/2009 of J.M.F.C.-I,PATHANAMTHITTA

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 & 2 :

¶8

1. JOEMON @ JOEMON.C.WILLIAM,

¶9

AGED 26 YEARS,S/O.PONNACHEN,

¶10

RESIDING AT CHARIVUPARAMBIL VEEDU,

¶11

KOZHENCHERRY VILLAGE & TALUK,

¶12

PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶13

2. JIJO KOSHY,

¶14

AGED 24 YEARS,S/O.KOSHY MATHEW,

¶15

RESIDING AT THOOMPAMPATTU VEEDU,

¶16

KOZHENCHERRY VILLAGE & TALUK,

¶17

PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶18

BY ADVS.SRI.V. SETHUNATH

¶19

SRI.V. VINAY

¶20

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

¶21

1. VALSAMMA MATHEW, AGED 45 YEARS,W/O.ABRAHAM THOMAS, RESIDING AT THEKKETHADATHIL VEEDU, ATHYALANKAVU KADAMMANITTA MURI, NARANGANAM VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689661.

¶22

2. JOSE, AGED 44 YEARS,S/O.KOSHY,THEKKETHADATHIL VEEDU, ATHYALANKAVU,KADAMMANITTA MURI, NARANGANAM VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT PIN-689661.

¶23

Crl.MC.No. 425 of 2012 ()

¶24

3. SIJIN MARY SAJI,

¶25

AGED 19 YEARS,D/O SAJI,THEKKETHADATHIL VEEDU

¶26

ATHYALANKAVU,KADAMMANITTA MURI,NARANGANAM VILLAGE

¶27

KOZHENCHERRY TALUK,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT

¶28

PIN-689661.

¶29

4. THE SUB INSPECTOR, ARANMULA POLICE STATION,PIN-689665.

¶30

5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶31

HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM,PIN-682031.

¶32

BY ADV. SRI.M.N. JAYAPRAKASH (PATHANAMTHITTA)

¶33

BY ADV. SRI.K.T. SEBASTIAN

¶34

R4 AND R5 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTORS SRI. RAJESH VIJAYAN

¶35

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶36

DSV/-

¶37

P.S.GOPINATHAN, J.

¶38

Crl.M.C.NO. 425 OF 2012

¶39

Dated this the 14^th day of February,2012

¶40

O R D E R

¶41

In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners, who are the accused no. 1 and 2 in C.C.No.531/2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Pathanamthitta for offences under Sections 341, 294 (b), 323 and 354 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, seek order to quash all further proceedings in pursuance to Annexure-1 Final Report. The plea of the petitioners is that they had settled the matter between the defacto complainant and other injured. In support of that plea affidavits were also relied upon.

¶42

Going by the averments in Annexure 1 report, I find that the allegation is that the defacto complainant didn't give side to the vehicle driven by the petitioners. Being got angry, the petitioners waylaid the car driven by the defacto complainant at 9.15 p.m. on 19/10/2009 at the public road. The

¶43

Crl.M.C.NO. 425 OF 2012

¶44

¶45

defacto complainant and his brother, who is cited as witness no.2, were assaulted and that when the sister of the defacto complainant, who is a girl aged 15 years, attempted to interfere, she was caught at the tuft of hair and was beaten.

¶46

Having due regard to the nature of the allegation, I find that this is not a fit case to invoke jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to quash further proceedings on the plea of the settlement.

¶47

In support of the argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision reported in Shiji @ Pappu and Others Vs. Radhika and Another 2011(4) KHC Page No.616(SC). Reliance was placed on paragraph 13 of the above decision. Going by the above decision, I find that the Apex Court has cautioned that quashing of prosecution in exercise of powers under Section 482

¶48

Crl.M.C.NO. 425 OF 2012 3

¶49

shall be done with the utmost care and caution and that the power should be exercised sparingly and in cases where the High Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of the clear view that the continuance of the prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. Here in this case, there is no whisper in the petition that the trial of the case would be an abuse of the process of law or it would be futile. There is also nothing to conclude that in the event, the trial is conducted there is no likelihood of getting evidence to enter a conviction or that the continuance of the proceedings would be nothing but an empty formality. There is also no material to come to a conclusion that the refusal to exercise the powers may result in the abuse of the process of law. In the above circumstance, I find that even applying the ratio of the above decision, it is not appropriate to quash the trial court proceedings and to give a clean chit to the petitioners.

¶50

Crl.M.C.NO. 425 OF 2012

¶51

¶52

In the result, this petition is dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a direction may be issued to trial court to speed up trial. I find that it would be quite appropriate to direct the trial court to have a time bound disposal. Therefore, the trial court is directed to dispose the case at the earliest not later than 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order which the petitioner shall produce before the trial court.

¶53

P.S.GOPINATHAN JUDGE

¶54

DSV/-

¶55

Crl.M.C.NO. 425 OF 2012 5

Jomon v. Valsamma Thomas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jomon v. Valsamma Thomas

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

Bijumon @ Biju Karnan Vs State of Kerala

Sabin Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Rajan Vs K. Gopinathan Nair

Sanil Kumar Vs the State of Kerala

V.U.Kunhammed Vs State of Kerala

Giby Jacob Vs the State of Kerala