Allowed

Madhusoodhanan Pillai v. Sreeraj

Kerala HC18 Sept 2015Crl.MC/2516/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Criminal Miscellaneous case against six accused registered for IPC offences 143, 147, 149, 341, 323 and 294(b). The investigation was concluded and the complainant filed an affidavit confirming an out-of-court settlement. The court quashed the FIR and final report as further proceedings would serve no purpose.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the FIR and Annexure-B final report in Crime No. 692/2014 of Chengannur Police Station.

Madhusoodhanan Pillai Vs Sreeraj — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/27TH BHADRA, 1937

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2516 of 2015

¶6

CRIME NO. 692/2014 OF CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION , ALAPPUZHA

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 6 :

¶8

1. MADHUSOODHANAN PILLAI, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.ACHUTHAN PILLAI, GOPURAKATTIL HOUSE, THIRUVANVANDUR, CHENGANUR.

¶9

2. ANISHKUMAR, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.MADHUSOODHANAN PILLAI, GOPURAKATTIL HOUSE, THIRUVANVANDUR, CHENGANUR.

¶10

3. PRASANTH, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.JAYACHANDRANPILLAI, THENGUMTHARA PALLATH HOUSE, THIRUVANVANDUR, CHENGANUR.

¶11

4. MURALIDHARAN PILLAI, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN PILLAI, MUKALNIVAS, THIRUVANVANDUR, CHENGANUR.

¶12

5. MOHANAN PILLAI, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.GOPALA PILLAI, MUNDAKKAL HOUSE, THIRUVANVANDUR, CHENGANUR.

¶13

6. DILEEP KUMAR, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.SIVARAMA KURUP, DEEPAKBHAVANAM, THIRUVANVANDUR, CHENGANUR.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVY

¶15

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT AND STATE :

¶16

1. SREERAJ, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, CHIRAKARA HOUSE, VANAVATHUKARA MURI, THIRUVANVANDOOR VILLAGE, CHENGANUR.

¶17

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

¶18

R1 BY ADV. SRI.LIJO VARGHESE R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Crl.MC.No. 2516 of 2015

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :

¶23

ANNEXURE A: THE TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.692/2014. ANNEXURE B: THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF CHARGE SHEET SUBMITTED BEFORE JFCM, CHENGANOOR IN CRIME NO.692/2014.

¶24

ANNEXURE C: AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT.

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶31

¶32

Crl.M.C. No.2516 of 2015

¶33

Dated this the 18^th day of September, 2015

¶34

O R D E R

¶35

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶36

Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 6 in Crime No.692/2014 of Chengannur Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 341, 294(b) and 323 IPC. The investigation is over and Annexure-B final report has been filed.

¶37

It seems that the parties have settled the matter. The de facto complainant, who is the 1^st respondent herein, has filed an affidavit affirming that the matter has been amicably settled between them and he has no complaints against the petitioners. It seems that a trivial incident had resulted in the registration of the crime.

¶38

On going through the facts and circumstances of

¶39

the case, and considering the settlement arrived at between

¶40

the parties, this Court is of the view that no purpose will be

¶41

Crl.M.C.2516/2015

¶42

: 2 :

¶43

served in proceeding with the matter further. Therefore, Annexure-A FIR and Annexure-B final report in Crime No. 692/2014 of Chengannur Police Station can be quashed.

¶44

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and Annexure-A FIR and Annexure-B final report in Crime No.692/2014 of Chengannur Police Station are quashed.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

(B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE)

¶47

aks/18/09

¶48

// True Copy //

¶49

PA to Judge

Madhusoodhanan Pillai v. Sreeraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhusoodhanan Pillai v. Sreeraj

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

Jageesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Shabeer @ Babu Vs State of Kerala

Gleena Roy Vs Jithu Jose

Suresh Kumar.G Vs State of Kerala

Joy K.U. Vs S.I. of Police, Piravom Police Station

T Padmajan Vs State of Kerala