Allowed

Sivaprasad v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 May 2013Crl.MC/1476/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of proceedings against two accused. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, the court held that since the dispute was settled, quashing was appropriate.

What did the court decide?

The criminal miscellaneous case (Crl.M.C. No. 1476 of 2013) was allowed and Crime No. 1006/2010 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kottarakkara, as C.C. No. 241/2011, was qua

Sivaprasad Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF MAY 2013/13TH VAISAKHA 1935

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1476 of 2013 ()

¶6

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

¶7

CRIME NO. 1006/2010 OF POOYAPALLY POLICE STATION , KOLLAM DISTRICT. C.C. NO.241/2011 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT- II KOTTARAKKARA.

¶8

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 & 2:

¶9

1. SIVAPRASAD, S/O.CHANDRAN, KODATHINGAL ANATTUTHEKKETHIL VEEDU KOTTIYAM MURI, ADICHANALLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM.

¶10

2. MATHEW SIMON, S/O.K.M.SIMON, SANTHOSH BHAVAN, ADICHANALLOOR MURI ADICHANALLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE POOYAPPALLY POLICE STATION KOLLAM DISTRICT THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

2. RADHA,

¶15

D/O.NALINI, THEKKETHIL VEEDU, MYLODE MURI POOYAPPALLY VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT PIN-691306.

¶16

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.BOSE

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-05-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

tss

¶19

Crl.MC.No. 1476 of 2013 ()

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

ANNEXURE-A1 THE TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR AND FIS IN CRIME NO.1006/2010 OF POOYAPPALLY POLICE STATION IN KOLLAM DISTRICT REGISTERED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶23

ANNEXURE-A2 THE TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.1006/2010 OF POOYAPPALLY POLICE STATION IN KOLLAM DISTRICT PENDING AS C.C.241/2011 ON THE FILED OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURTII,KOTTARAKKARA.

¶24

ANNEXURE-A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPROMISE ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONERS AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶25

ANNEXURE-A4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPROMISE PETITION DTED 26/03/2013 JOINTLY FILED BY THE PETITIONERS AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

tss

K.SURENDRA MOHAN , J.

¶32

-------------------------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.1476 Of 2013

¶33

-------------------------------------------------DATED THIS THE 3^rd DAY OF MAY, 2013

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.1006/2010 of Pooyappally Police Station, now pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Kottarakkara as C.C.No.241/2011. The offences charged against them are under Sections 3 and 4 read with Section 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the disputes have been settled among the parties. The 2^nd respondent is the complainant. The petitioners and the 2^nd respondent have filed a petition to compound the offence, which is produced as Annexure A4. The petitioners seek the issue of appropriate orders quashing the criminal proceedings pending against them. According to them, since the matter has been settled, no purpose would be served by proceeding with the criminal prosecution against them.

¶36

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor, as well as Sri M.Bose, who

¶37

Crl.M.C.No.1476/13 -2-

¶38

appears for the 2^nd respondent, and in the light of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012 (4) KLT 108), I am satisfied that this Crl.M.C. can be allowed. The disputes involved, having been settled among the parties, it is unfair to continue the criminal proceedings against the petitioners any longer.

¶39

In view of the above, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Crime No.1006/10 of Kundara Police Station, now pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kottarakkara, as C.C.No.241/2011, is quashed.

¶40

Sd/- (K.SURENDRA MOHAN) JUDGE .

¶41

dsn

Sivaprasad v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sivaprasad 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

Manikandan M. Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India

Bindu George Vs Director of Public Instruction

Biju S. Vs the District Collector

Krishnakumar.M.C. Vs State of Kerala

Shafi K.V. Vs State of Kerala

Jiju.G. Raju Vs State of Kerala