Allowed

Shibu Kunnanattu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Sept 2014Crl.MC/5101/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash a criminal prosecution where the accused and the defacto complainant had settled a dispute arising from a non-compoundable offence of assault, ruling that continued prosecution would serve no purpose.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; prosecution quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C; petitioner released from prosecution; bail bond discharged.

Shibu Kunnanattu Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/1ST ASWINA, 1936

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 5101 of 2014 ()

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶7

SHIBU KUNNANATTU, AGED 44 YEARS S/O.JOSEPH, KUNNANATTU HOUSE, CHIRAKKAKAM VARAPPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.GEORGE

¶9

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT (INJURED):

¶10

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

¶11

2. JOSE THOMAS, AGED 41 YEARS S/O.THOMAS, KUNNANATTU HOUSE, CHIRAKKAKAM VARAPPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶12

R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.G.RAJEESH R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S. HYMA

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Crl.MC.No. 5101 of 2014 ()

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶17

A1 - TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DT. 08.1.05 IN CRIME NO. 9/2005 OF THE VARAPPUZHA POLICE STATION.

¶18

A2 - TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE DATED NIL IN CC NO. 124 OF 2014 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - III, NORTH PARAVUR.

¶19

A3 - THE AFFIDAVIT DT. 25.8.14 SWORN TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT / DEFACTO COMPLAINANT.

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

PA TO JUDGE sab

P.UBAID, J.

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

¶25

Crl. M.C No. 5101 of 2014

¶26

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

¶27

Dated this the 23^rd day of September, 2014.

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

The petitioner herein is the second accused in crime No. 9 of 2005 of the Varappuzha Police Station, registered under Section 341, 324, and 427 IPC. The first accused in the crime faced trial and received conviction. However he was released on probation. When the petitioner herein consistently remained absent in the proceedings, the case against him was split up as C.C 122/14. Now he has approached this court with this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the prosecution as against him on the ground that he and the defacto complainant have settled the whole dispute, and that continuance of the prosecution against him in such a circumstance will not serve any purpose. He has brought such a petition because the offence under Section 324 IPC is not compoundable, after the amendment to the of code of Criminal Procedure.

¶30

The defacto complainant, Jose Thomas, who sustained injuries in the alleged incident of assault is the second respondent in

¶31

this proceeding. He has filed affidavit to the effect that he has

¶32

¶33

Crl. M.C No. 5101 of 2014

¶34

settled the dispute with the petitioner herein, and that he has no complaint or grievance.

¶35

In so many decisions the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even in cases involving non compoundable offences the High Court can act under Section 482 Cr.P.C, and quash the prosecution if the court finds that the parties have really come to terms or settled the dispute, and that continuance of prosecution will not serve any purpose. When the defacto complainant has settled the whole dispute amicably with the accused, continuance of the prosecution will be a sheer waste of time, and it will not serve any purpose. This a matter involving only personnel disputes.

¶36

In the result, this petition is allowed. The prosecution against the petitioner herein in C.C No.124/14 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court III, North Paravur, Ernakulam will stand quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, and the petitioner will stand released from prosecution. The bail bond if any executed by him will stand discharged.

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

sab

¶39

/TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE

Shibu Kunnanattu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shibu Kunnanattu 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.F.Shajan Vs State of Kerala

A.F.Shajan Vs State of Kerala

Ashfak Naseem Vs Surej

Sidhique Vs State of Kerala

Randheep Vs State of Kerala

Radhakrishna Kaimal Vs State of Kerala