Allowed

Harikumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Jul 2015Crl.MC/2125/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings against petitioners in two cases (Crl.M.C.No. 2125/2015 and 2129/2015) involving offences under sections 143, 147, 148 IPC and related sections, as the parties had amicably settled the dispute, and continuing prosecution would waste court time.

What did the court decide?

Impugned final reports/charge sheets in Crime No.482/2011 and Crime No.432/2011 and all further proceedings pending against petitioners in both cases stand quashed.

Harikumar Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2015/10TH ASHADHA, 1937

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2125 of 2015

¶6

CRIME NO. 482/2011 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTITTA

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1-5:

¶8

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

¶9

1. HARIKUMAR, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, PUNNAMOOTTIL VEEDU, RANDALUMOODU, PONGALADI PARANTHAL P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶10

2. RENJITH, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, PALAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, PANNIVIZHA, ANANDAPPALLY P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶11

3. SAJITHA BABU, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.BABU, VATTAKKUNNIL VEEDU, PANNIVIZHA, ANANDAPPALLY P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶12

4. JOHN DAVID, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.DAVID DENNIS, THIRUHRIDAYA BHAVAN, PANNIVIZHA, ANANDAPPALLY P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶13

5. ANEESH, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.BHAGEERATHAN, ANEESH BHAVAN, PANNIVIZHA, ANANDAPPALLY P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE

¶15

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE, COMPLAINANT AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 645.

msv/

-2-

-2-

Crl.MC.No. 2125 of 2015

¶23

3. SHAJAHAN, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL KARIM, KARIMPILAYIKKAL VEETTIL, MANKARAMURI, MANKULAM, KONNI VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 645.

¶24

R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.N.SURESH R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR

¶25

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-07-2015, ALONG WITH CRMC. 2129/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

msv/

¶27

Crl.MC.No. 2125 of 2015

¶28

APPENDIX

¶29

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶30

ANNEXURE I : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT ALONG WITH THE ADDITIONAL REPORTS AND REMAND REQUEST IN CRIME NO.482/2011 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION.

¶31

ANNEXURE II : TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DTD.22.3.2015 EXECUTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE NOTARY PUBLIC.

¶32

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msv/

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

==================

Crl.M.C.No. 2125 & 2129 of 2015

¶40

==================

¶41

Dated this the 1^st day of July, 2015 O R D E R

¶42

The petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.2125/ are accused Nos.1 to 5 in the impugned Anx.I final report/charge sheet Crime No.482/2011 of Pathanamthitta Police Station, registered for offences punishable under Secs.143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 307 of the I.P.C., at the instance of respondent No.3 (who is 1^st petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.2129/2015). The petitioners in Crl.M.C.No. 2129/2015 are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Anx.I final report/charge sheet filed in Crime No.432/2011 of Adoor Police Station, registered for offences punishable under Secs.323, 324, 325 and 34 of the I.P.C., at the instance of respondent No.3, which has led to the institution of C.C.No. 883/2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Adoor. It is submitted by both sides that the above referred cases are case and counter case. It is stated that now the entire disputes between the contesting respondents in these Crl.M.Cs. have been settled amicably and that affidavits of the respective

¶43

: 2 :-

¶44

parties have also been filed in these cases, wherein it is stated that they have no objection for quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings pending against their opposite parties in the aforestated crimes. It is in the light of these aspects that the petitioners have preferred the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Cases with the prayer to quash the impugned criminal proceedings against them.

¶45

In a catena of decisions, the Apex Court has held that, in appropriate cases involving even non-compoundable offences, the High Court can quash prosecution by exercise of the powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C., if the parties have really settled the whole dispute or if the continuance of the prosecution will not serve any purpose. Here, this Court finds a real case of settlement between the parties and it is also found that continuance of the prosecution in such a situation will not serve any purpose other than wasting the precious time of the court, when the case ultimately comes before the court. On a perusal of the petition and on a close scrutiny of the investigation materials on record and the affidavit of settlement and taking into account the attendant facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the legal principles

¶46

: 3 :-

¶47

laid down by the Apex Court in the cases as in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 160 = (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and anr. reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, more particularly paragraph 29 thereof, could

¶48

be applied in this case to consider the prayer for quashment. Accordingly, it is ordered in the interest of justice that:-

¶49

(i) in Crl.M.C.No. 2125/2015 the impugned Anx.I final report/charge sheet filed in Crime No.482/2011 of Pathanamthitta Police Station, and all further proceedings arising therefrom pending against the petitioners therein stand quashed.

¶50

(ii) In Crl.M.C.No.2129/2015 the impugned Anx.I final report/charge sheet filed in Crime No.432/2011 of Adoor Police Station, which has led to the institution of C.C.No. 883/2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Adoor, and all further proceedings arising therefrom pending against the petitioners therein stand quashed.

¶51

With these observations and directions these Criminal

¶52

Miscellaneous Cases stand finally disposed of.

¶53

sab

¶54

Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶55

///True copy///

¶56

P.S. to Judge

Harikumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harikumar 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

John Peter Vs State of Kerala

Paul Vs State of Kerala

Ratheesh P. Vs State of Kerala

Jose Thomas Vs Sub Inspector of Police

M.C.Majeed Vs State of Kerala

Shameer M.A. Vs State of Kerala