Allowed

Athul Francis v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Mar 2015Crl.MC/1291/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition under Section 482 CrPC, the Hon'ble Kerala High Court held that even in non-compoundable offence cases, the High Court can quash the prosecution if there is a genuine amicable settlement. Finding a real and genuine settlement between the accused and the complainants, with parties on cordial terms, the Court quashed the prosecution and released the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of prosecution against the petitioners in S.C No. 240 of 2014 and release of petitioners from prosecution.

Athul Francis Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/28TH PHALGUNA, 1936

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1291 of 2015 ()

¶6

IN SC 240/2014 of SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR CRIME NO. 385/2010 OF SREEKANDAPURAM POLICE STATION , KANNUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 9:

¶8

1. ATHUL FRANCIS AGED 24 YEARS

¶9

S/O SAJAN, ANCHUTHAIKAL HOUSE, SREEKANDAPURAM P.O.

¶10

SREEKANDAPURAM AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶11

2. ASWIN@ ASWIN TOM JOEL AGED 24 YEARS

¶12

S/O THOMAS, MAVELI HOUSE, CHERIKODE P.O.

¶13

SREEKANDAPURAM AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶14

3. ALBIN @ ALBIN DEVASSIA AGED 24 YEARS

¶15

S/O DEVASSIA, VADAKKEDATH HOUSE, CHUZHALI P.O. CHUZAHLI AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶16

4. BLESSON @ BLESSON JOSEPH AGED 24 YEARS S/O JOSEPH, MELEDATH HOUSE, NEDUNGOME P.O. SREKANDAPURAM AMSOM, KANNUR DISTIRCT.

¶17

5. JOBIN @ JOBIN JOSE K., AGED 23 YEARS S/O JOSE, KANIYANPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANDALAM P.O. NADUVIL AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶18

6. JIJO M.K. AGED 23 YEARS

¶19

S/O GOVINDAN, SREENILAYAM, PATTANNUUR P.O. PATTANNUR AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶20

7. JIJESH M. AGED 25 YEARS

¶21

S/O. KUNHIRAMAN, JIMNALAYAM, PATTANNUR P.O. PATTANNUR AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶22

8. ARUN @ ARUN K.JOHNSON AGED 23 YEARS

¶23

S/O JOHNSON, KURISINKAL HOSUE, KOTTOOR

¶24

SREEKANDAPURAM P.O., SREEKANDAPURAM AMSOM KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶25

9. ARUL CHARLES AGED 24 YEARS S/O CHARLES, CHEMPANTHOTTY P.O., NIDIYENGA AMSOM KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶26

BY ADV. SRI.V.A.SATHEESH

¶27

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDNETS/STATE, DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & AGGRIEVED PERSONS:

¶28

1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM THROUGH S.H.O. SREEKANDAPURAM POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶29

2. JASEER @ JASEER KEETHADATH, AGED 25 YEARS S/O MUHAMMED KUNHI, AYISHAS MANZIL, CHEDICHERY PERUVALATHUPARAMBA P.O., IRIKKUR AMSOM KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶30

3. SANDEEP K.V., AGED 25 YEARS S/O SUKUMARAN, MAVILA CHATHOTH HOUSE, KAVUMABAI SREEKANDAPURAM P.O., NIDIYENGA AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶31

4. SMEJO, AGED 24 YEARS S/O RAMAKRISHNAN, ORATHIL VEETTIL, MANNERI KALLIAD AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶32

5. LITHUN P.P., AGED 24 YEARS S/O LAKSHMANAN, PUTHIYA PURAYIL HOUSE, MANGALASSSERI PATTUVAM AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶33

R2-5 BY ADV. V.T.MADHAVANUNNI R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. P. MAYA

¶34

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶35

Crl.MC.No. 1291 of 2015 ()

¶36

APPENDIX

¶37

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶38

ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.385/2010 OF SREEKANDAPURAM POLICE STATION.

¶39

ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE POLICE BEFORE THE J.F.C.M. COURT, TALIPARAMBA IN CRIME NO.385/2010 OF SREEKANDAPURAM POLICE STATION.

¶40

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

PA TO JUDGE sab

P.UBAID, J.

Crl. M.C No. 1291 of 2015

¶45

Dated this the 19^th day of March, 2015.

¶46

O R D E R

¶47

The petitioners herein are the accused in S.C No. 240 of 2014 of the Assistant Sessions Court, Payyannur. They seek orders quashing the prosecution on the ground of amicable settlement of the whole dispute between them and the de facto complainant. Crime in this case was registered under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 308 r/w 149 of IPC on the complaint of one Jaseer who is the second respondent in this proceeding brought under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He has filed affidavit to the effect that he has settled the whole dispute with the accused, and he has no grievance or complaint now. The other persons who sustained injuries in the alleged incident are the respondents Nos. 3 to 5 in this proceeding. They have also filed affidavit to the effect that they have settled the whole dispute with the accused, and they have no grievance or complaint now.

¶48

Crl. M.C No. 1291 of 2015 2

¶49

In so many decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even in cases involving non-compoundable offences, the High Court can quash the prosecution in pending proceedings, if the parties have really settled the whole dispute amicably out of court, and continuance of the proceedings will not serve any purpose in such a circumstance of amicable settlement. Here, I find a real and genuine case of settlement between the parties. This is not a case involving any public interest or public issue. The parties have come to terms amicably on the intervention of persons acceptable to both sides, and I am satisfied that the parties are now on quite cordial terms. In such a situation, continuance of the prosecution will not serve any purpose, other than wasting the precious time of the court. No doubt, nobody will support the prosecution in such a situation, if the case goes to trial. On a perusal of the FI statement and the final report I find nothing for a prosecution under Section 308 IPC. Such a Section was incorporated by the police on the basis of a purely hypothetical statement.

¶50

In the result, this petition is allowed. The prosecution against the petitioners herein in S.C No. 240 of 2014 of the Assistant Sessions Court, Payyannur will stand quashed under

¶51

Crl. M.C No. 1291 of 2015 3

¶52

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly,

¶53

the petitioners will stand released from prosecution.

¶54

P.UBAID, JUDGE

¶55

sab

Athul Francis v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Athul Francis 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

Reena Denson Vs James Joseph

Vinayan Vs Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Perinthalmanna

Benny Vs the State of Kerala

Muneer T K Vs State of Kerala

Showkathali Vs State of Kerala

E.Abdhul Jaleel Vs State of Kerala