Allowed

George Kutty v. Rajesh.M.P

Kerala HC17 Mar 2014Crl.MC/1298/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous petition seeks quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. The Court quashed the case pending before the Magistrate after finding that the dispute between school parents and staff was settled through mediation, restoring harmony with no remote possibility of conviction.

What did the court decide?

The petition is allowed and proceedings in C.C.No.637/2012 are quashed.

George Kutty Vs Rajesh.M.P — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/26TH PHALGUNA, 1935

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1298 of 2014 ()

¶6

CC. NO. 637/2012 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, RANNI. CRIME NO. 59/2011 OF PAMPA POLICE STATION.

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 & 2:

¶8

1. GEORGE KUTTY, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.VARKEY, RESIDING AT ELAVUMKAL HOUSE, THULAPPALLY MURI, KOLLAMULA VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶9

2. THOMAS MATHEW, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.MATHEW, RESIDING AT THOPPIL, THULAPPALLY MURI, KOLLAMULA VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH.

¶11

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT/INJURED/STATE:

¶12

1. RAJESH. M.P, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.PAPPAN, RESIDING AT MANNASSERIL VEETIL, KOKKAYAR MURI & VILLAGE, PEERUMED TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PRESENTLY WORKING AS PRINCIPAL OF GHSS, KISUMAM, THULAPPALLY MURI, KOLLAMULA VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶13

2. LISBIMOL PHILIP, AGED 32 YEARS, W/O.JOHNY SEBASTIAN, RESIDING AT ELAYANITHOTTATHIL HOUSE, ERUMOORICKAL MURI & ERUMELI VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PRESENTLY WORKING AS TEACHER OF GHSS, KISUMAM, THULAPPALLY MURI, KOLLAMULA VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶14

3. PRASANTH. V.M, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.V.K. ACHUTHAPANICKER, RESIDING AT VANJIPPUZHA HOUSE, PADIMONL MURI & KOTTANGAL VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PRESENTLY WORKING AS TEACHER OF GHSS, KISUMAM, THULAPPALLY MURI, KOLLAMULA VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶15

Crl.MC.No. 1298 of 2014

¶16

4. RAMESH. T.S, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.SREEDHARAN, RESIDING AT THADATHIL HOUSE, KISUMAM, THULAPPALLY MURI & KOLLAMULA VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PRESENTLY WORKING AS TEACHER OF GHSS, KISUMAM, THULAPPALLY MURI, KOLLAMULA VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶17

5. THE SUB INSPECTOR, PAMPA POLICE STATION.

¶18

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

¶19

R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.S.JUSTUS. R5 & R6 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S. HYMA.

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

rs.

¶22

Crl.MC.No. 1298 of 2014

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-

¶25

ANNEXURE 1 COPY OF THE ACCUSED COPY IN CRIME NO.59/2011 OF PAMPA POLICE STATION NOW PENDING AS C.C. NO.637/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE J.F.M.C., RANNI.

¶26

ANNEXURE 2 COPY OF THE NOTARIZED AFFIDAVITS FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4.

¶27

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶32

Crl.M.C.No.1298 of 2014

¶33

Dated this the 17^th day of March, 2014.

¶34

O R D E R

¶35

This is an application filed by the accused persons in C.C.No.637/2012 (Crime No.59/2011 of Pamba police Station) on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ranni to quash the proceedings on the basis of a settlement under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶36

It is alleged in the petition that the petitioners were shown as accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the above case. The case was registered on the basis of a compliant given by the defacto complainant alleging the offences under Sections 447, 506 (i) and 332 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and on that basis Crime No.59/2011 of Pamaba police station was registered. After investigation, Annexure A1 final report was filed which was taken on file as C.C.No.637/2012 and it is pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ranni. In the meantime, the matter has been settled between the parties and since some of the offences are not compoundable in nature, they could not file the application for compounding

¶37

¶38

Crl.M.C.No.1298 of 2014

¶39

before the concerned Magistrate court. So they have no other option except to approach this Court seeking the following relief:

¶40

For these and other grounds to be urged at the time of hearing it is most respectfully submitted that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash Annexure 1 proceedings Crime No.59/2011 of Pampa police station now pending as C.C.No.637/2012 on the file of JFMC, Ranni.

¶41

Respondents 1 to 4, who are the defacto complainant and the other persons involved in the incident appeared through counsel and filed Annexures A2 series affidavits and submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties and they do not want to proceed with the prosecution in view of the settlement. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was some incident occurred between the parents of the children studying in the school and the school staff on the basis of which the present crime has been registered and later the dispute between them has been settled. So he prayed for allowing the application.

¶42

The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, as

¶43

Crl.M.C.No.1298 of 2014 3

¶44

directed by this Court submitted that except this case, there is no other crime registered against the petitioners and according to her instruction, the matter has been settled, but opposed the application.

¶45

It is an admitted fact that on the basis of a statement given by the first respondent as the defacto complainant, the Pamba police has registered a case as Crime No.59/2011 against the petitioners alleging the offences under Sections 447, 506(i) and 332 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation, Annexure A1 final report was field and it was taken on file as C.C.No.637/2012 and pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ranni. It is also an admitted fact that petitioners 1 and 2 are the parents of children studying in the school and there was some incident occurred on the fateful day in the school between the petitioners and the school staff which resulted in registration of the crime. It is seen from Annexure A2 series affidavits filed by the defacto complainant and others, who were the injured in the case, that there was some incident occurred due to some misunderstanding between the petitioners and the teachers of

¶46

Crl.M.C.No.1298 of 2014 4

¶47

the school and in that incident some scuffle occurred and now the misunderstanding has been removed and harmony has been restored between the parties and the school authorities on account of intervention of mediators and others. Further, it cannot be said to be an offence affecting the society as such and the incident occurred in the school between the parents of the children studying in the school and teachers which has been settled amicably between them so as to restore harmony between them and also have smooth functioning of the school in future.

¶48

Further in the decision reported in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:

¶49

“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 mercantile, 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. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would

¶50

Crl.M.C.No.1298 of 2014

¶51

¶52

be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of the criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”

¶53

In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision

¶54

and also considering the fact that the matter has been settled between the parties and settlement was arrived at due to intervention of respectable mediators including the Parent Teachers Association and the staff of the school for the purpose of restoring good relationship between the parents and the school authorities and no purpose will be served by proceeding with the case as the prosecution witnesses are not going to support the prosecution and it will be only wastage of time, this Court feels that it is fit case where the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be invoked to quash the proceedings. So the petition is allowed and further proceedings in C.C.No.637/2012 (Crime No.59/2011 of Pamba police station) pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ranni against the petitioners is quashed.

¶55

¶56

Crl.M.C.No.1298 of 2014

¶57

Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court for further necessary action in this regard.

¶58

Sd/-

¶59

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶60

¶61

/true copy/

¶62

P.S to Judge

George Kutty v. Rajesh.M.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

George Kutty v. Rajesh.M.P

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

G. Rajendran Vs State of Kerala

Pradeep Vs State of Kerala

Muneerudheen Vs Muhammed Ibrahim

O.N.Shila Vs State of Kerala

Akhil Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Shukoor Vs State of Kerala