Allowed

Eldos Mathew v. the Sub Inspector of Police, Mulanthuruthy Police Station

Kerala HC4 Mar 2015Crl.MC/1345/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge quashed the criminal prosecution against two accused persons under Section 482 CrPC. The court found a genuine amicable settlement between the accused and the complainant, concluding that continuing the trial would serve no purpose.

What did the court decide?

The prosecution in C.C No.314/2014 was quashed; petitioners released from prosecution; bail bond discharged.

Eldos Mathew Vs the Sub Inspector of Police, Mulanthuruthy… — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/13TH PHALGUNA, 1936

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1345 of 2015

¶6

IN C.C NO.314/2014 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PIRAVOM

¶7

CRIME NO.1034/2013 OF MULANTHURUTHY POLICE STATION

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 &2:

¶9

1. ELDOS MATHEW, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.MATHEW, RESIDING AT NETTADYIL HOUSE, MANEEDU P.O, PIRAVOM, MANEEDU VILLAGE, PEPPATHY DESOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

2. SUMESH.P.S, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.SUKU, RESIDING AT PANDANKUDIYIL HOUSE, ARAKUNNAM P.O, MULANTHURUTHY, PIN - 682 313 MULANTHURUTHY VILLAGE, THURUTHIKARA DESOM, NOW RESIDING AT THE HOUSE OF PADATHUMKATTIL BABU.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.P.S.SISHOY

¶12

SRI.ANTO THOMAS

¶13

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶14

1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

¶15

MULANTHURUTHY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶16

2. ANEESH, AGED 24 YEARS,

¶17

S/O.RADHAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT VADAKKETHALACKAL, PERUMPALLY DESOM, MULANTHURUTHY VILLAGE - 682 314.

¶18

R2 BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE P.CHACKO R1 BY SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE.P

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Crl.MC.No. 1345 of 2015

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶23

ANNEXURE A1: COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1033/2013 ANNEXURE A2: COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 10.12.2013 ANNEXURE A3: AFFIDAVIT DATED 24.2.2015 ANNEXURE A4: COPY OF THE FINAL CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.1034/2013

¶24

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE

P.UBAID, J. --------------------------------------Crl.M.C No.1345 of 2015

¶30

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

¶31

Dated this the 4^th day of March, 2015

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

The petitioners herein are the two accused in C.C No.314/2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Piravom. 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 341, 323 and 326 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the complaint of one Aneesh who is the 2^nd 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.

¶34

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 prosecution will

¶35

Crl.M.C No.1345 of 2015 2

¶36

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.

¶37

In the result, this petition is allowed. The prosecution against the petitioners herein in C.C No.314/2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Piravom will stand quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the petitioners will stand released from prosecution, and the bail bond, if any, executed by them will stand discharged.

¶38

P.UBAID JUDGE

¶39

Eldos Mathew v. the Sub Inspector of Police, Mulanthuruthy Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Eldos Mathew v. the Sub Inspector of Police, Mulanthuruthy Police Station

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

Hussain Vs State of Kerala

Shaji @ Shajimon Vs State of Kerala

Ruksana Vs State of Kerala

Chandramathi Vs Sasikumar

Bindu Kumar B Vs the Excise Inspector

N.a.Abhilash Vs State of Kerala