Quashed

Deepu v. Jayakrishnan @ Unni

Kerala HC25 Feb 2013Crl.MC/665/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a Criminal Miscellaneous petition and quashed pending committal proceedings in C.P.No.66/2012. The delinquency involved offences under Sections 341, 323, and 308 IPC. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that settlement of the dispute made continuation of proceedings unnecessary, permitting quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Misc. allowed. Final Report in Crime No.616/2012 and further proceedings in C.P.No.66/2012 quashed.

Deepu Vs Jayakrishnan @ Unni — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/6TH PHALGUNA 1934

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 665 of 2013 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CP.66/2012 of THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE -II,PATHANAMTHITTA DATED CRIME NO. 616/2012 OF KONNI POLICE STATION , PATHANAMTITTA

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

1. DEEPU, AGED 22 YEARS S/O.PURUSHAN, VETTOORPARAYIL HOUSE KONNYTHAZHAM VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶9

2. RENDEEP @ REJU, AGED 22 YEARS S/O MURALDARAN NAIR, REJU BHAVANAM, VENMELIPADI ARUVAPULAM VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶10

3. VISHAL, AGED 22 YEARS S/O.ASHOKAN, KOTTAKKATU HOUSE, VETTOORMURI RADIOMUKKU, KONNYTHAZHAM VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶11

4. ADARSHKRISHNA, AGED 22 YEARS S/O.BALAN, VETTOORTHEVARUMANNIL HOUSE KONNYTHAZHAM VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.AJEESH K.SASI

¶13

COMPLAINANT(S)/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT :

¶14

1. JAYAKRISHNAN @ UNNI,, AGED 21 YEARS S/O.DIVAKARAN NAIR, PUTHIYAVEETTIL HOUSE KOZHENCHERRYTALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689541.

¶15

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶16

R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAJESH VIJAYAN

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Crl.MC.No. 665 of 2013 ()

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONERS ANNEXURES

¶21

ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO,616/2012 OF KONNI POLICE STATION PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶22

ANNEXURE B: THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT / IST RESPONDENT SIGNIFYING THE FACTUM OF SETTLEMENT COMPOSITION OF THE DISPUTES WITH THE PETITIONERS.

¶23

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

dlk

C.T.RAVIKUMAR,J.

Crl.M.C.No.665 of 2013

¶29

Dated this the 25^th day of February, 2013

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

The petitioners are the accused in crime No.616/2012

¶32

of Konni Police Station. After the investigation Annexure-A Final Report has been laid in that crime and the committal proceedings of which is now, pending before the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Pathanamthitta as C.P.No.66/2012. The delation against the petitioners is one of commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 308 and r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In view of the subsequent developments, I do not think it necessary to deal with the facts or contentions, in detail.

¶33

The first respondent is the de facto complainant who sustained injuries at the hands of the petitioners. Annexure-B is an affidavit filed by the first respondent/the de facto complainant to the effect that the dispute that ultimately led to the lodging of the complaint and the registration of the aforesaid crime has been settled between himself and the petitioners. It is

¶34

¶35

Crl.M.C.No.665 of 2013

¶36

stated therein that the light of the settlement he did not wish to prosecute the petitioners any further.

¶37

I have heard the learned counsel for the

¶38

petitioner, the learned counsel for the first respondent and also the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶39

The offences under Sections 341 and 323 of the

¶40

Code of Criminal Procedure are compoundable in terms of provisions under Section 320, Cr.P.C. However, the offence under Section 308, IPC is not compoundable. In the decision in B.S. Joshi V. State of Haryana reported in 2003 (2) KLT 1062 (SC), the Honourable Supreme Court held that the provisions under Section 320, Cr.P.C. cannot limit or affect the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. by the High Courts. In Gian Singh V. State of Punjab reported in 2012(4)KLT 108(SC) the Honourable Apex Court held that it is the duty of the High Courts to prevent continuation of criminal proceedings which became unnecessary, in the interest of justice. As noticed hereinbefore the case involved in crime No.616/2012 of Konni Police Station is purely personal in nature. The dispute has now been settled

¶41

¶42

Crl.M.C.No.665 of 2013

¶43

between the petitioners and the first respondent/de facto complainant. In the circumstances and in view of the decisions of the Honourable Apex Court referred supra I am of the view that continuation of proceedings in C.P.No.66/2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Pathanamthitta as against the petitioners based on Annexure-A Final Report has become unnecessary. In the said circumstances, this Criminal M.C. is allowed. Resultantly, Annexure-A Final Report in Crime No.616/2012 of Konni Police Station and all further proceedings pursuant thereto in C.P.No.66/2012 which is now pending as such before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Pathanamthitta are hereby quashed.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

C.T.RAVIKUMAR,JUDGE.

¶46

dlk

Deepu v. Jayakrishnan @ Unni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepu v. Jayakrishnan @ Unni

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

Lakshmi Vs State

Radha Vs State of Kerala

Ramsheed Vs State of Kerala

Sarath.S.Nair Vs Premjith

E.v.Shaji Vs State of Kerala

Syamlal Vs State of Kerala