Allowed

Subran v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Jul 2013Crl.MC/1626/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, accused in a case arising from a granite quarrying accident leading to death, sought quashing of charge sheets. The High Court, observing a full and complete settlement between the parties and noting the personal nature of the offence, allowed the petition and quashed the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process. The court relied on Supreme Court guidelines regarding settlemen

What did the court decide?

Quashing of Annexure-I Charge Sheet and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in S.C.No.794 of 2010.

Subran 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 V.K.MOHANAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2013/12TH ASHADHA, 1935

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1626 of 2013

¶6

SC 794/2010 of HON'BLE FAST TRACK COURTNO.II, THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

1. SUBRAN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. LATE AYYAPPAN, ATHRAPILLY HOUSE, KODASSERY P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 721.

¶9

2. SUBRAN,

¶10

S/O. KUNJAN, CHENTHURUTHY HOUSE, KODASSERY P.O.,

¶11

THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 721.

¶12

3. RAGHY,

¶13

AGED 32, W/O. VINOD, THOPPIL HOUSE,

¶14

ELINJIPRA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 725.

¶15

4. HANEESH K.H,

¶16

AGED 31, S/O. HARI, KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE,

¶17

PULLOOOT P.O., KODUNGALLOOR,

¶18

THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 663.

¶19

5. CHANDRAN,

¶20

S/O. LATE KRISHNAN, AGED 46, KUZHUVELIL PARAMBIL HOUSE, MECHIRA, KODASSERY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 721.

¶21

6. RATHEESAN,

¶22

S/O. LATE MANIYAN, AGED 38, THEKKODATHU HOUSE, NAYARANGADI DESOM, KODASSERY VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶23

BY ADV. SRI.P.V.PAULSON

¶24

COMPLAINANT(S):

¶25

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

...2/-

..2..

Crl.MC.No. 1626 of 2013

¶30

2. BAIJU K.N,

¶31

S/O. LATE NARAYANAN, AGED 35, KOLAKADAN HOUSE, KODASSERY P.O., NAYARANGADI DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 725.

¶32

3. SIVADASAN, AGED 41, S/O. LATE KAVALAN, THOTTAPPILLY HOUSE, KODASSERY P.O., NAYARANGADI DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 725.

¶33

4. AMMINI, AGED 53, S/O. LATE KAVALAM, THOTTAPPILLY HOUSE, KODASSERY P.O., NAYARANGADI DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 725.

¶34

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA R2 TO 4 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.VARGHESE

¶35

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶36

¶37

Crl.MC.No. 1626 of 2013

¶38

APPENDIX

¶39

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES

¶40

ANNEXURE I: COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET WITH FIR ISSUED TO THE PETITIOENRS IN CRIME NO.72/2008.

¶41

ANNEXURE II: AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDEDNT.

¶42

ANNEXURE III:AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4.

¶43

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURE

NIL.

TRUE COPY

P.S.TO JUDGE

V.K.MOHANAN, J.

Crl.M.C.No.1626 of 2013

¶50

Dated this the 03^rd day of July, 2013

¶51

ORDER

¶52

The above petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') at the instance of the petitioners, who are the accused in S.C.No.794 of 2010 on the file of the Fast Track Court No.II, Thrissur which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No.72 of 2008 of Chalakudy Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 304 & 34 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure-I Charge Sheet and all further proceedings in S.C.No.794 of 2010 on the file of the Fast Track Court No.II, Thrissur as the matter is settled out of court.

¶53

The allegation against the petitioners is that as the result of an accident occurred in the granite quarrying operations conducted by the accused on 25/01/2008 a lady died due to the impact of injuries sustained on her head and thus the allegation is that the accused has committed the

¶54

Crl.M.C.No.1626 of 2013

¶55

:-2-:

¶56

offence punishable under Section 304 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶57

Now the case of the petitioner is that, the matter is settled out of court. The second respondent, de facto complainant has sworn into Annexure-II affidavit. Similarly, the legal heirs of the deceased in the above case has also sworn into Annexure-III affidavit.

¶58

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the 2^nd respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶59

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, during the pendency of the above case, the dispute is settled amicably between the parties which is the subject matter of the above case. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above case is abuse of process of law and proceedings.

¶60

The learned counsel for the respondents 2, 3 and 4 who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondents submitted that the 2^nd respondent, who is the de

¶61

Crl.M.C.No.1626 of 2013

¶62

:-3-:

¶63

facto complainant does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioners and they have no grievance against them.

¶64

I have carefully considered the above submissions of the respective counsel. I have verified the documents and materials produced along with the above petition including Annexures-II & III affidavits. In the given facts and circumstances of the case and especially in the light of the settlement arrived between the parties to the dispute, the learned Public Prosecutor has also no objection in allowing the above petition.

¶65

Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, it can be seen that the offences involved in the above case are only under Sections 304 & 34 of I.P.C. which are more or less personal in nature and no public interest is involved. It is pertinent to note that though such offences are involved, the real parties to the dispute approached this Court after having amicably settled the matter. From the submission made by the counsel for the 2^nd respondent, it appears to me

¶66

Crl.M.C.No.1626 of 2013

¶67

:-4-:

¶68

that the de facto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioners/ accused in the light of the settlement arrived by them. In this juncture, it is relevant to note the decision of the Honourable Apex Court reported in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012(4) KLT 108(SC)] in which the Supreme Court has held as follows:-

¶69

“57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under S.320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz;(i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R. may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed..

¶70

It is further held as follows:-

¶71

“......... But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial,mercandile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences

¶72

Crl.M.C.No.1626 of 2013

¶73

:-5-:

¶74

arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim........”

¶75

According to me, in the light of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and particularly in view of the settlement arrived in the present case, the dictum laid in the above decision is applicable in the present case. According to me, as the parties to the dispute settled the issues amicably, it is the duty of this Court to promote and encourage such settlement, instead of compelling the parties to go on with the dispute. It is pertinent to note that since the matter is settled out of court, in the event of proceeding with the trial, there would not have any fruitful prosecution resulting the conviction of the accused, rather the net result would be sheer waste of judicial time and abuse of process of

¶76

Crl.M.C.No.1626 of 2013

¶77

:-6-:

¶78

the court and proceedings. Thus, according to me, following the decisions cited supra, this Criminal M.C. can be allowed granting the relief as sought for.

¶79

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing Annexure-I Charge Sheet and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in S.C.No.794 of 2010 on the file of the Fast Track Court No.II, Thrissur.

¶80

V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE

¶81

skj

¶82

True copy

¶83

P.A. to Judge

Subran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subran 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

Abhilash K S Vs Ambili Babu

Mohammed Salahudheen E.K Vs Union Territory Lakshadweep Administrator Kavarathy

Sheikh Ashraf Hussain Vs Canara Bank

Shafeer Vs State of Kerala

Sabhapathi Vs State of Kerala

Somarajan Vs the Dy S P Cbcid,Thiruvalla