Allowed

Moidu @ Manu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Nov 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/2664/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, in this criminal revision petition, relied on the Supreme Court decision in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab to exercise powers under Section 482 CrPC. The court quashed the prosecution and acquitted the petitioner who was a minor at the time of the offence, based on a settlement reached with the complainant, holding that it would be unfair to continue proceedings despite th

What did the court decide?

The prosecution case was quashed and the petitioner was acquitted of the offences charged.

Moidu @ Manu Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/16TH KARTHIKA 1934

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2664 of 2004 (C)

¶6

CRA.413/2002 of II ADDL.D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,PALAKKAD CC.143/1997 of J.M.F.C.- I, OTTAPPALAM

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S):

¶8

MOIDU @ MANU, S/O.MUHAMMED @ KUNJAPPA, PERIMPADARI HOUSE, LAKSHAM VEEDU COLONY, KAVUNDA KOTTAPURAM, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH

¶10

COMPLAINANT(S):

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SREEKRISHNAPURAM POLICE STATION PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶12

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. BIJU MEENATTOOR

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

S. Siri Jagan, J.

¶15

Crl. R.P. No. 2664 of 2004

¶16

Dated this, the 7^th day of November, 2012.

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner is one of the three accused in C.C.No. 143/1997 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ottappalam. He was prosecuted for offences under Sections 323 and 326 read Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation was that the petitioner, along with his father and mother, the other two accused, attacked CW1, who is the father's brother of the petitioner. The Magistrate convicted the petitioner and acquitted the others. The following sentences were imposed on the petitioner:

¶19

“A1 sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence u/s 326 of IPC. He shall also pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- to CW1 as compensation u/s 357(3) of Cr.P.C. A1 is acquitted of the offence u/s 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. “

¶20

The petitioner filed Crl. A. No. 413/2002 before the Sessions Judge, Palakkad. The Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence, but reduced the compensation to Rs.5000/- with a default sentence for two months. The petitioner is challenging the judgments of the courts below.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has settled the matter with the de facto complainant and the petitioner has produced Annexure A1 affidavit filed by

¶22

Crl. R.P. No. 2664 of 2004 -: 2 :-

¶23

the de facto complainant stating that he has no more grievance in the matter. The petitioner submits that the petitioner was a minor at the time when the offence was committed. He has produced true copy of his SSLC book to prove the same. He therefore submits that invoking the principles laid down in the decision of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab , 2012 (4) KLT 108(SC), this Court may acquit the petitioner, exercising powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

¶24

I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.

¶25

Admittedly, the offence is not a compoundable offence. But the Supreme Court has in Gian Singh's case (supra), held that even in criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offence, if the offence is personal in nature, on the basis of compromise reached between the offender and the victim, this Court can quash criminal proceedings under Section 482, after considering whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue proceedings in view of the settlement or compromise reached. In this case, the petitioner is the nephew of PW1, the de facto complainant. The petitioner has produced an affidavit executed by the de facto complainant to the effect that the matter was settled between them and he has no more complaint against the petitioner. The petitioner has proved that at the time of commission of the offence, the petitioner was a minor.

¶26

Crl. R.P. No. 2664 of 2004

¶27

-: 3 :-

¶28

Taking into account all these facts, I suo motu invoke my powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and quash the prosecution case against the petitioner.

¶29

Accordingly, the judgments of the courts below are set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the offence charged against him. The Criminal R.P. is allowed as above.

¶30

Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.

¶31

Tds/

¶32

[True copy]

¶33

P.S to Judge.

Moidu @ Manu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moidu @ Manu 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

Nagesh Vs State of Kerala

Vasu Vs State of Kerala

Jinesh M. Vs Shibu, S/O.Rajan

Vasu Vs Radhakrishna Kurup

K.v.Abraham Vs State of Kerala

T.Yesudas Vs State of Kerala