Dismissed

Shaji v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Jul 2013Crl.MC/2077/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal misdemeanor case was filed by two accused persons seeking quashing of proceedings under Sections 332, 308, and 34 of the IPC. The accused claimed the matter was settled with the de facto complainant. However, the Court dismissed the petition citing the Seriousness of injuries to pedestrians and the failure of real aggrieved persons to settle, applying the principle from Gian Singh.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shaji 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

MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2013/10TH ASHADHA, 1935

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2077 of 2013 C

¶6

SC 367/2009 NOW PENDING AS L.P. NO. 7 OF 2012 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT &SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-I), PATHANAMTHITTA

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2:

¶8

SHAJI,

¶9

S/O THANKACHAN, PULLAMVELIL HOUSE NEAR MOSCO JUNCTION, PATUKOTTIKKALMURIYIL PANTHALAM, THEKKEKKARA VILLAGE

¶10

SIDASIVANPILLAI @ AJI,

¶11

S/O KUTTAPPAKURUP, SREEVILASAM HOUSE NEAR AMBEDKAR COLONY, PATUKOTTIKKALMURIYIL PANTHALAM THEKKAKKARA VILLAGE

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.) SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN

¶13

SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN

¶14

RESPONDENTS/ STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶15

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 31

¶16

SABJAKHAN, AGED 42 YEARS S/O ISMAIL RAWTHAR, BISMILLA COTTAGE, TONNALLUR MURI PANTHALAM VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA 689501

¶17

R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.TEKCHAND

¶18

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. RAJESH VIJAYAN

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Crl.MC.No. 2077 of 2013

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶23

ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO 663 OF 2005 OF ADOOR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT

¶24

ANNEXURE B THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT SIGNIFYING THE FACTUM OF SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES WITH THE PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED AND AFFIRMING THAT 2ND RESPONDENT HAS NO OBJECTION IN THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS BEING QUASHED BASING ON SETTLEMENT

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

ks.

TRUE COPY

P.S. TO JUDGE

V.K.MOHANAN, J.

Crl.M.C.No.2077 of 2013

¶32

---------------------------------------Dated this the 1st day of July, 2013

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in L.P.No.7/12 on the file of the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge (Adhoc-1), Pathanamthitta where the offence alleged against them are under Sections 332, 308 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Now the case of petitioners is that the matter is settled out of court with the de facto complainant who is the second respondent herein. The counsel appearing for the second respondent also submitted that the matter is settled out of court. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it is not proper to record the settlement and acquit the accused considering the seriousness of the offence involved in the case.

¶35

I have carefully considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and as well as the second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor.

¶36

The further allegation is that accused No.1 drove a Maruthi car bearing registration No.KL-4-P-501 through Kottayam-Kottarakkara M.C. road in a rash and negligent manner and hit two pedestrians, who were standing in front of

¶37

¶38

Crl.M.C.No.2077 of 2013

¶39

Adoor private bus stand. The further allegation is that the accused drove away the car after the occurrence in spite of the fact that the second respondent given lawful direction to stop the vehicle. It is also the allegation that A1 had allegedly assaulted the second respondent herein with hands and second accused hit the second respondent/de facto complainant with a rod. Thus the accused obstructed the official duty of the second respondent and thus thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 332, 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶40

Now the case of the petitioners is that the case is settled with the second respondent who is the de facto complainant a police personal. But the allegation is that the accused No.1 driven the car in a rash and negligent manner as the result of it the car hit two pedestrians who were standing in front of Adoor private bus stand. The real aggrieved person has so far not come forwarded with the settlement. In the above circumstances, according to me, this is not a fit case to acquit the accused following the decision reported in Gian

¶41

Singh v. State of Punjab (2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC).

¶42

Therefore, there is no merit in this petition and

¶43

¶44

Crl.M.C.No.2077 of 2013

¶45

accordingly, the same is dismissed.

¶46

V.K.MOHANAN Judge

¶47

mns/

Shaji v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shaji v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Sulaiman Vs State of Kerala

Sasidharan Vs State of Kerala

Biju Vs Dhanya

N.Narayanan Vs State of Kerala

Rajan Vs the State of Kerala