Allowed

Sivaji v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Dec 2014Crl.MC/6517/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition and quashed the prosecution under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court noted that while the victim was a juvenile at the time of the incident, he has since attained majority. Having reached an amicable settlement, the continuation of prosecution was deemed unnecessary and harmful.

What did the court decide?

The prosecution against petitioners in C.P.No.99 of 2014 will stand quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Petitioners stand released; bail bond discharged.

Sivaji Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936

¶5

CRL.MC.NO. 6517 OF 2014

¶6

C.P.NO.99 OF 2014 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KODUNGALLUR

¶7

CRIME NO. 940/2012 OF MATHILAKOM POLICE STATION , TRISSUR

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 3:

¶9

1. SIVAJI, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O NARAYANANKUTTY, MURUKKUMTHARA HOUSE ASHARIKAYATTAM, KAIPAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN:680 681.

¶10

2. SHIBI, AGED 32 YEARS S/O NARAYANANKUTTY, MURUKKUMTHARA HOUSE ASHARIKAYATTAM, KAIPAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN:680 681.

¶11

3. VIJEESH, AGED 38 YEARS S/O GOPI, IRINGATHURUTHY HOSUE, PANJAMPILLY DESOM, KAIPAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN:680 681.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR SRI.A.D.SURESH BABU

¶13

RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT/CW3 & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶14

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶15

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MATHILAKAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN:680 685.

¶16

3. MUNEER RAHMAN, AGED 19 YEARS

¶17

S/O MUHAMMED, NEDIYAPARAMBIL, PANAJAMPILLY DESOM KAIPAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN:680 681.

¶18

4. MUHAMMED, AGED 44 YEARS S/O BAVA NEDIYAPARAMBIL, PANJAMPILLY DESOM KAIPAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN:680 681.

¶19

R3, R4 BY ADV. SRI.T.B.GAFOOR

¶20

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.P.SAREENA GEORGE

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

¶23

CRL.MC.NO. 6517 OF 2014

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶26

ANNEXURE A1:	TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.940/2012 OF MATHILAKAM POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE A2:	TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN ANNEX. A1 FIR.
ANNEXURE A3:	TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.941/2012 OF MATHILAKAM POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE A4:	TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF 4TH RESPONDENT ISSUED BY KODUNGALLUR MUNICIPALITY.
ANNEXURE A5:	CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.10.2014 IN ST NO.1313/2012 OF JFCM COURT, KODUNGALLUR.
ANNEXURE A6:	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPOUNDING PETITION FILED IN S.T.NO. 1231/2012 OF JFCM COURT, KODUNGALLUR.
ANNEXURE A7:	CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN PROCEEDINGS IN S.T.NO. 1231/2012 OF JFCM COURT, KODUNGALLUR.
ANNEXURE A8:	COMPOUNDING PETITION DATED 11.12.2014 SIGNED BY THE PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 3 & 4 IN THE ABOVE CRL.M.C.

¶27

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

P. UBAID, J.

Crl.M.C.No.6517 of 2014

¶33

Dated this the 17^th day of December, 2014

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The petitioners herein are the three accused in C.P.No.99 of 2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kodungallur. Crime in the said case was registered under Sections 341 and 323 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC on the complaint of one Muneer Rahman. The complainant Muneer Rahman was a juvenile on the date of the alleged incident. The offence being triable by the Special Court in such a circumstance, committal proceeding was initiated against the petitioners. There was also a counter case in connection with the same incident. Pending the two proceedings the parties came to terms amicably and reported settlement in court. As the victim of offence in this case was juvenile on the date of the incident the composition was not accepted by the court below. However, the composition was recorded in the other case and, the accused in the counter case were acquittal under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C. Now the de facto complainant Muneer has become major. Annexure-A4 birth certificate shows that his date of birth is 29.09.1995. Now he is competent to take

¶36

Crl.M.C.No.6517 of 2014

¶37

¶38

decisions of his own. He is the 3^rd respondent herein. Another person who sustained simple injury in the incident, is the 4^th respondent in this proceeding. It is none other than the father of the juvenile. Now the parties have filed a joint petition of amicable settlement, and it is accepted by the court. Crl.M.A.No.11511 of 2014 is accordingly allowed. I find that the parties have really come into terms amicably and the counter case stands closed on composition. Here composition before the court below is not possible because the matter is now before the committal court. In such a situation orders will have to quash by this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C, quashing the prosecution. I am well satisfied that there is real and genuine settlement between the parties. The de facto complainant, Muneer who has now attained majority has taken voluntary decision of his own, settling the whole dispute, and he has no grievance or complaint now. I find that continuance of prosecution in such a situation will not serve any purpose, and will do harm and hardship to both sides. It would also be inappropriate to continue the prosecution when the counter case stands closed on composition.

¶39

In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. The prosecution against he petitioners in C.P.No.99 of 2014 of the Judicial First

¶40

Crl.M.C.No.6517 of 2014

¶41

¶42

Class Magistrate Court, Kodungallur will stand quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the petitioners will stand released from prosecution. The bail bond, if any, executed by the petitioners will stand discharged.

¶43

P. UBAID, JUDGE.

¶44

Sivaji v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sivaji 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

K.M.Nasarudheen Vs State of Kerala

Ameer Abdul Azeez Vs Sub Inspector of Police Kayamkulam

David Laly Vs State of Kerala

Yasin Vs State of Kerala

Ignatius Kulirani Vs State of Kerala

Aalu Vs State of Kerala