Disposed

K.Shankara v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC28 Feb 2012Crl.MC/448/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in criminal miscellaneous petition No. 448 of 2012 disposed of a petition seeking quashment of a final report under Section 482 CrPC. The court directed the trial court to examine which offences were made out and allow compounding if applicable, rather than quashing the prosecution directly.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of with directions to the trial court to examine the validity of offences and record compounding if applicable.

K.Shankara Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | 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 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/9TH PHALGUNA 1933

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 448 of 2012 (A)

¶6

CC.1967/2011 of J.M.F.C-I,KASARAGOD

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

K.SHANKARA

¶9

S/O.CHENIYA, AGED 50 YEARS, CHOYIMOOLA

¶10

KUNDIKKANA, NEERCHAL VILLAGE, KASARAGOD.

¶11

SREEDHARA BHAT, S/O.SHYAM BHAT, AGED 50 YEARS,

¶12

BELA HOUSE, BELA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD.

¶13

VEDAVATHI AMMA, W/O.ADHI KESAVA BHAT, AGED 58 YEARS,

¶14

NELLIKALAYA HOUSE, BADIADKA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD.

¶15

M.VISWANATHA RAI, S/O.BANDOOPPA, AGED 59 YEARS,

¶16

DREAM COTTAGE, BADIADKA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD.

¶17

BY ADV. SRI.S. JIJI

¶18

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

¶19

STATE OF KERALA

¶20

REPRESENTED BY S.H.O., KASARAGOD POLICE STATION

¶21

KASARAGOD DISTRICT, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶22

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶23

PUTTU, S/O.MAILA,

¶24

AGED 40 YEARS, CHOYIMOOLA, KUNDIKKANA POST

¶25

NIRCHAL VILLAGE, KASARAGOD.

¶26

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN. R2 BY SRI. JOSEPH SEBASTIAN (KOLLAM)

¶27

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

amk

¶29

P.S.GOPINATHAN, J

¶30

---------------------------Crl.M.C.No. 448 OF 2012

¶31

-------------------------Dated this the 28^th day of February, 2012.

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

In this petition under Section 482 of the

¶34

Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners, who are accused in C.C.No.1967/2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class- I, Kasaragod seeks an order to quash Annexure A2 Final Report accusing offences under Sections 420, 465, 471 and 468 r/w Section 34 IPC with a plea that the matter has been settled between the parties. In support of the plea of settlement an affidavit said to have been sworn by the defacto complainant is produced. The memorandum of the witnesses is not produced. Who all are

¶35

aggrieved is not made out. Going by the final report, it appears that all the offences alleged are not made

¶36

Crl.M.C.No. 448 OF 2012 2

¶37

out. Some of the offences are made out, of which some are compoundable. Other offence are not compoundable. Non compoundable offences could not be allowed to be compounded. See the decision in Iswar Singh Vs. State of M.P (2008) 15 S.C.C 667 and Gulabdas Vs. State of M.P 2012(1) KLT S.N.46 (Case No.49) S.C. Therefore, it is for the trial court to see as to what all offences are made out and in the event the offences made out are compoundable, the trial court can record the compounding and dispose of the case.

¶38

In the result, this petition is disposed of with direction to the trial court to look into as to what all offences are made out and in the event the offences made out are compoundable and there is proper compounding petition, it shall be recorded and the case should be disposed of. The petitioners are

¶39

Crl.M.C.No. 448 OF 2012 3

¶40

directed to appear before the trial court on the next posting date or any other date so fixed by the trial court, apply for bail and have the bail bond executed as ordered by the trial court in the event compounding petition could not be filed on the date of appearance . In the event there is proper compounding petition and the petitioners are duly represented, even without insisting for the appearance of the petitioners, compounding shall be recorded. See the decision in Mathew Vs. State of Kerala (1986 KLT 128).

¶41

Sd/P.S.GOPINATHAN, //True Copy//

¶42

P.A to Judge

K.Shankara v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Shankara v. State of Kerala

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

Nissam Vs State of Kerala

Ayyappadas Vs State of Kerala

Shamshad Vs the State of Kerala

Sreeraj Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Usman Vs Muhammed Sheref

Shajira Vs the State of Kerala