Allowed

Palakkeel Ranjith v. Ittammal Prakasan

Kerala HC11 Sept 2013Crl.MC/3620/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged FIR charging him with offences under IPC and Explosive Substances Act. Court noted settlement and acquittal order against co-accused. Held that proceedings constituted abuse of process and matter settled. Quashed FIR and pending proceedings allowing settlement.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of Annexure-I FIR and all further proceedings pending against petitioner in L.P.C.209/2006 in C.P.No.162/2006 on file of JFCM court, Thaliparamba.

Palakkeel Ranjith Vs Ittammal Prakasan — 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 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/20TH BHADRA, 1935

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3620 of 2013 ()

¶6

S.C. NO.702/1996 OF ASST.SESSIONS COURT, PAYYANNUR CRIME NO.340/01 OF TULIPARAMBA POLICE STATION.

¶7

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

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶9

PALAKKEEL RANJITH, AGED 41 YEARS S/O LAKSHMANAN, PALAKKEEL, KOOVERY AMSOM THERANDY POST, KANNUR DISTRICT

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL SRI.P.S.BINU

¶11

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1. ITTAMMAL PRAKASAN, AGED 41 YEARS S/O NARAYANAN KOOVERY AMSOM DESOM, THERANDY (P.O), KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN 670003

¶13

2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM R1 BY ADV. SMT.P.A.ANEESHA R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-09-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

Crl.MC.No. 3620 of 2013 () ---------------------------

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE FIR & POLICE CHARGE IN CRIME NO 340/2001 OF THALAPARAMBNA POLICE STATION

¶20

ANNEXURE II CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN S.C 702/2006 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, PAYYANNUR

¶21

ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF IST PETITIONER

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

/ TRUE COPY /

P.A. TO JUDGE

V.K.MOHANAN, J.

Crl.M.C.No.3620 of 2013

¶28

Dated this the 11^th day of September, 2013.

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

The above petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') at the instance of the petitioner, who is the 4^th accused in Crime No.340/2001 of Thaliparamba Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 307 r/w 149 of I.P.C. and u/s.3 & 5 of Explosive Substances Act, with a prayer to quash Annexure I FIR and police charge and all further proceedings in L.P.C.209/2006 in C.P.No.162/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate court, Thaliparamba, as the matter is settled out of court.

¶31

The case of the petitioner, who is the 4^th accused in Crime No.340/01 of Thaliparamba police station, is that the other accused in the very same crime faced the

¶32

¶33

Crl.M.C.No.3620 of 2013

¶34

prosecution and as per Annexure II judgment, they are acquitted and the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of that judgment. It is also the case of the petitioner that after the registration of the crime, the entire dispute is settled with the 1^st respondent who is the de facto complainant and therefore no purpose would be served even if the petitioner is ready to face the trial. Therefore, the present M.C. is filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure I FIR and police charge and all further poceedings pending against the petitioner in L.P.C.No.209 of 2006 in C.P.No.162/06 on the file of the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-Thaliparamba.

¶35

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶36

The prosecution case in brief is as follows : Accused are the workers of Communist Marxist Party and PW1 is a worker of Congress party. On account of political enemity, on 18.7.2001 at about 7.30 p.m. all te accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with deadly

¶37

¶38

Crl.M.C.No.3620 of 2013

¶39

weapons like bomb at Therandy in Koovery village. Thereafter all the accused wrongfully restrained PW1 who was walking along the Chudala-Therandy Kudavu road. Thereafter 1^st accused threw a bomb at the left side of the forehead of PW1 and he sustained injury due to the explosion of the said bomb. It is alleged that all the accused did the above acts in prosecution of their common object to commit murder of PW1. Thereby the accused committed the above said offences. Thus according to the prosecution, the accused in the above crime committed the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 307 r/w 149 of I.P.C. and u/s.3 & 5 of Explosive Substances Act.

¶40

In the light of the claim of the petitioner and in view of the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner, I have perused Annexure II judgment. The learned Judge who undertook the trial in S.C.No.702/06, particularly in paragraph 5 of Annexure II judgment, found that PW1 who launched Ext.P1 FI statement could not

¶41

¶42

Crl.M.C.No.3620 of 2013

¶43

identify the person who throw bomb at him as there was darkness. Pws.2 to 6, the eye witnesses, have also gave evidence not supporting the prosecution case. Consequently, the learned Public Prosecutor who conducted the trial in the trial court, given up the remaining witnesses. In the light of the above facts and circumstances involved in the case, the learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecution has failed to prove the offences alleged against the accused. It is also relevant to note that the de facto complainant had sworn into Annexure III affidavit stating that he has no objection in dropping the proceedings against the petitioner, as the entire dispute is settled out of court.

¶44

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the above case, the matter is settled amicably between the parties to the dispute 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.

¶45

¶46

Crl.M.C.No.3620 of 2013

¶47

The learned counsel for the 1^st respondent who

¶48

on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondent submitted that the above respondent, who is the de facto complainant does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioner and he has no grievance against him.

¶49

I have carefully considered the above submissions of the respective counsel. I have verified the documents and materials produced along with the above petition. 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.

¶50

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 143, 147, 148, 341, 307 r/w 149 of I.P.C. and u/s.3 & 5 of Explosive Substances Act, which are more or less personal

¶51

Crl.M.C.No.3620 of 2013

¶52

¶53

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 1^st respondent, it appears to me that the de facto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioner/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 Gian Singh's case, the Supreme Court has held as follows:-

¶54

“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.”

¶55

Crl.M.C.No.3620 of 2013

¶56

¶57

It is further held as follows:-

¶58

“......... 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 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........”

¶59

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

¶60

Crl.M.C.No.3620 of 2013

¶61

¶62

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 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.

¶63

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing Annexure-I FIR and all further proceedings pending against the petitioner in L.P.C.209/2006 in C.P.No.162/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate court, Thaliparamba, in Crime No.340 of 2001 of Thaliparamba Police Station.

¶64

Sd/-

¶65

V.K.MOHANAN, Judge

¶66

ami/

¶67

//True copy//

¶68

P.A. to Judge

Palakkeel Ranjith v. Ittammal Prakasan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palakkeel Ranjith v. Ittammal Prakasan

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

Praveen Vs S I of Police,Hill Palace Police Station

K.P.Faisal Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Musthak Vs State of Kerala

Lejukuttan Vs State of Kerala

Sebastian George Vs State of Kerala

Noufal Vs State of Kerala