Allowed

Abhi @ Abhilash v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Jun 2014Crl.MC/1613/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused persons approached the High Court seeking quashing of criminal proceedings following a mutual settlement with the de facto complainant and injured neighbors. Validating that continuation would cause injustice, the Court invoked its inherent powers to quash the FIR and related cases against all six accused. The case is treated as having a predominately civil flavor arising from a property d

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the charge sheet in S.C.No.151/2013 and further proceedings in C.C.No.56/2013.

Abhi @ Abhilash Vs State of Kerala — 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

THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/15TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1613 of 2014 ()

¶6

SC.NO. 151/2013 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, KANNUR ........................... CRIME NO. 667/2012 OF KANNUR TOWN , KANNUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

1. ABHI @ ABHILASH.P.K.,

¶9

S/O.SHANTHA, 'SHAJIL NIVAS', EDACHOVVA, KANNUR.PIN-670 006

¶10

2. JITHIN.P., S/O.DINESHAN, 'JITHIN NIVAS', NEAR ELAYAVOOR TEMPLE, ELAYAVOOR, EDACHOVVA DESOM, ELAYAVOOR DESOM, KANNUR, PIN-670 006

¶11

3. RAHUL RAJEEV C.T.,

¶12

S/O.RAJEEVAN, 'THEJUS', MAPPILAKANDY, ELAYAVOOR DESOM, KANNUR, PIN-670 006

¶13

4. AMAL RAJEEV,

¶14

S/O.RAJEEVAN, 'THEJUS', MAPPILAKANDY, ELAYAVOOR DESOM, KANNUR, PIN-670 006

¶15

5. SREEDHARAN.P.,S/O.ANANTHAN,

¶16

'SHAJIL NIVAS', ELAYAVOOR AMSOM, EDACHOVVA DESOM, KANNUR.PIN-670 006

¶17

6. LALU PRASAD, MINOR,

¶18

REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER, SHANTHA, W/O. SIVANAND, 'SHAJIL NIVAS', EDACHOVVA, KANNUR,PIN-670 006

¶19

BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR

2/-

sts

-2-

CRMC.NO.1613/2014

¶24

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶25

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶26

HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶27

2. P.SUJITH,S/O.P.DAMODARAN,

¶28

'SHANTHAS', CHELORA AMSOM,

¶29

THILANOOR DESOM, KANNUR-670 006

¶30

3. A.AKSHAY,S/O.SUJITH,

¶31

'SHANTHAS', CHELORA AMSOM, THILANOOR DESOM, KANNUR-670 006

¶32

4. P.ADARSH, S/O.JAYAPRAKASH, 'SREEKRISHNA',

¶33

EDACHOVA, KANNUR.PIN-670 006

¶34

5. P.SUMA, W/O.T.K.JAYAPRAKASH,

¶35

'SREEKRISHNA', EDACHOVA, KANNUR-670 006

¶36

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. P.MAYA

¶37

R2 TO R5 BY ADV. SRI.LEO GEORGE

¶38

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶39

sts

¶40

Crl.MC.No. 1613 of 2014 ()

¶41

APPENDIX

¶42

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶43

ANNEX A1: ACCUSED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.667/2012 OF KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION. ANNEX A2: AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5 BEFORE THE NOTARY PUBLIC ON 27/01/2014. ANNEX A3 AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5 BEFORE THE NOTARY PUBLIC ON 12/04/2014

¶44

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO.JUDGE

sts

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶50

Crl.M.C.No.1613 of 2014

¶51

Dated this the 5^th day of June, 2014.

¶52

O R D E R

¶53

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed by the accused persons in Crime No.667/2012 of Kannur police station to quash the entire proceedings pending against them in view of the settlement under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶54

Originally only those persons who have been arrayed as accused in S.C.No.151/2013 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Kannur alone have filed the application for quashing that case. When it was brought out that one more accused involved in the case and since he was a juvenile, case against him was split up and final report in respect of him was filed before the Juvenile Justice Board (Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thalassery), the petitioners have amended the petition incorporating him as additional petitioner and filed additional affidavit and also wanted to quash the proceedings against him also. It is alleged in the petition that the above crime was

¶55

Crl.M.C.No.1613 of 2014 2

¶56

registered on the basis of the statement given by the second respondent as de facto complainant against the petitioners in the amended petiton alleging offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 427, 308 read with Sectin 149 of the Indian Penal Code and during the course of investigation, it was revealed that the 6^th petitioner, who was also arrayed as accused was a juvenile and so after investigaton, Annexure A1 final report in respect of petitioners 1 to 5 was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kannur, which was later commited to the Sessions Court and it was taken on file as SC.No.151/2013 and made over to the Assistant Sessions Court, Kannur where it is now pending. As against the 6^th petitioner is concerned, final report was filed before the Juvenile Justice Board (Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thalassery) and it was taken on file as C.C.No.56/2013 and it is pending before that court. Petitioners and defacto complainant and respondents 3 to 5 are the injured in the incident and the incident itself was happened on account of some act of the de facto complainant washing the car from the road in front of the house of the accused persons.

¶57

Now the mattter has been settled between the parties.

¶58

Crl.M.C.No.1613 of 2014 3

¶59

Respondents 2 to 5 have filed affidavit stating that they have no grievance against the petitioners and their original relationship has been restored. Further Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code is not attracted in this case. In view of the settlement, no purpose will be served by proceeding with the case as well and conviction in such cases is not possible. Since some of the offences alleged are non compoundable in nature, they cannot file application for compounding before the court below. So they have no other remedy excpet to approch this Court seeking the following relief:

¶60

For these and other grounds to be urged at the time of hearing, it is humbly prayed that this Honourable Court be pleased to quash Annnexure-A1 charge sheet in S.C.No.151/2013 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Kannur and also the further proceedings in C.C.No.56/2013 pending before the Juvenile Justice Court, in the interest of justice.

¶61

Respondents 2 to 5 appeared through counsel and submitted that since they are neighbours, they have settled the matter due to intervention of mediators and their relationship has been restored and they do not want to prosecute the petitioners. They have also filed an affidavit

¶62

¶63

Crl.M.C.No.1613 of 2014

¶64

stating these facts and they have no objection in quashing the proceedings.

¶65

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the settlement, there is no possibility of conviction. So he prayed for allowing the application.

¶66

The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, as directed by this Court submitted that except this case there is no other case against the petitioners and since grave offences have been incorporated, it cannot be quashed at this stage invoking Section 482 of the Code.

¶67

It is an admitted fact that the incident happended on 1.4.2012 at about 2.15 a.m. The Kannur town police had registered a case against the petitioners along with ten other identifiable persons as Crime No.667/2012 alleging offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 427 and 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also an admitted fact that during investigation, it was revealed that only 6 persons were involved in the incident and the 6^th petitioner herein was a juvenile and so case against him was split up and final report in respect of him was filed before the Juvenile Justice Board where it was taken on file as C.C.No.56/2013 and

¶68

Crl.M.C.No.1613 of 2014 5

¶69

that is pending before that court. It is also an admitted fact that as regards petitioners 1 to 5, final report was filed and after commital, it is now pending before the Assistant Sessions Court, Kannur as S.C.No.151/2013. It is also seen from the averments in the petition and the affidavits filed by the injured including the de facto complainant that the petitioners and the injured are neighbours and the case has been registered on the basis of some misunderstanding and due to the intervention of mediators and well wishers of both parties the case has been settled and their relationship has been restored. So, now the de facto complainant as well as the injured do not want to prosecute the petitioners. It is true that Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code has been incorporated which is a grave offence. But I am not at this stage going into the question as to whether the allegations are sufficient to attract the offence under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code or not considering the fact that the matter has been settled between the parties due to intervention of well wishers of both the parties and it is a property dispute that resulted in the crime and it is not having any public interest as well. In view of the fact that the matter has been settled, there is no possibility of conviction also, even

¶70

Crl.M.C.No.1613 of 2014 6

¶71

if the case is allowed to prosecute as none of the witnesses including the de facto complainant will support the case of the prosecution and continuing the case will only amount to wastage of judicial time.

¶72

Further in the decision reported in Gian Singh v. State

¶73

of Punjab (2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:

¶74

“But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly 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

¶75

¶76

Crl.M.C.No.1613 of 2014

¶77

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 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.”

¶78

In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision

¶79

and also considering the fact that the petitioners and respondents 2 to 5 are neighbours and registration of the crime has happened due to some misunderstanding between them and the entire dispute between them has been settled due to intervention of mediators and their original relationship has been restored and convicion in such cases is remote, this Court feels that it is a fit case where power under Section 482 of the

¶80

Crl.M.C.No.1613 of 2014 8

¶81

Code can be invoked to quash the proceedings in order to promote the settlement and also restoration of relationship between the neighbours and the pendency of this case should not a hurdle for the same.

¶82

So, the petition is allowed and further proceedings in S.C.No.151/2013 pending before the Assistant Sessions Court, Kannur as against the petitioners 1 to 5 herein, who are the accused in this case and further proceedings in C.C.No.56/2013 against the 6^th petitioner pending before the Juvenile Justice Board (Chief judicial Magistrate Court, Thalassery) are hereby quashed.

¶83

Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned courts immediately for necessary further action.

¶84

Sd/K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

/true copy/

P.S to Judge

Crl.M.C.No.1613 of 2014 9

Abhi @ Abhilash v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhi @ Abhilash 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

C.v.Mohana Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Dennise.E.Fernandez Vs State of Kerala

Joseph Titus Vs State of Kerala

Valiya Peediyakkal Sulaikha Vs State of Kerala

Jyothish Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Babu Thomas Vs Raghavan E.A