Dismissed

Vineesh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Dec 2015Crl.MC/5475/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses the petitioners' application to quash criminal proceedings alleging offences under Sections 498(A) and 306 IPC. The court held that settlement is not a ground for quashing under Section 482 CrPC when the victim is deceased and no common terms exist between parties. A request for expeditious disposal was directed to the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Application to quash proceedings dismissed; request for expeditious disposal directed to trial court.

Vineesh Vs State of Kerala — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 5475 of 2015 ()

¶6

IN SC 31/2015 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT - I, MANJERI CRIME NO. 653/2014 OF TIRUR POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2:

¶8

1. VINEESH, S/O.VISWANATHAN AGED 34 YEARS PUTHRODATH VAZHACHALIL HOUSE, KOMMERI POST, VALAYANAD KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶9

2. VISWANATHAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN AGED 71 YEARS, PUTHRODATH VAZHACHALIL HOUSE KOMMERI POST, VALAYANAD, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031 REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE TIRUR POLICE STATION TIRUR-676101 , MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶13

2. KRISHNAN, S/O.AYYAPPAN AGED 57 YEARS, MULLAPPALLI HOUSE, PACHATTIRI TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN -676 105.

¶14

3. JAYASREE

¶15

AGED 50 YEARS, W/O.KRISHNAN, MULLAPPALLI HOUSE PACHATTIRI, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN -676 105.

¶16

R2&R3 BY ADV. SRI.ARUN MATHEW VADAKKAN R1 BYSMT.SHEEBA M.T., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Crl.MC.No. 5475 of 2015 ()

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

ANNX.A1 - CERTIFIED COPY OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORT DATED 20.04.2014 IN CRIME NO.653/2014 OF TIRUR POLICE STATION.

¶22

ANNX.A2 - CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT DATED 05.09.2014 IN CRIME NO.653/2014 OF TIRUR POLICE STATION.

¶23

ANNX.A3 - AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.05.2015

¶24

ANNX.A4 - AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 16.05.2015

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: N I L

¶26

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

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

P. UBAID, J. ------------------------------Crl.M.C.No.5475 of 2015

¶31

---------------------------------------------Dated this the 17^th day of December, 2015

¶32

ORDER

¶33

The petitioners herein are the two accused in S.C.No.31/2015 of the Additional District and Sessions Court-I, Manjeri, involving the offences under Section 498(A) and 306 IPC. They seek orders quashing the proceedings on the ground of amicable settlement made out of court. It is not known who settled the matter. The victim is no more, and that is why there is a charge under Section 306 IPC. It appears that the other witnesses are not interested in the prosecution. Anyway, that is not a ground to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In matters like this, this Court cannot quash the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the ground of settlement. The accused will have to face trial before the trial court. Settlement out of court can be accepted by the court for passing orders under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure only in cases where the accused and the complainant, or the victim of offence,

¶34

Crl.M.C.No.5475/2015

¶35

¶36

have come to terms. In cases like this such a settlement is not possible.

¶37

Now the learned counsel for the petitioner makes a request for a direction for expeditious disposal of the case. It is not known what exactly is the pendency in the trial court. Anyway, if that is the request, the petitioners can approach the trial court with necessary application, which will be appropriately considered by the learned trial judge.

¶38

With these observations, this Crl.M.C. is disposed of.

¶39

SD/- P. UBAID JUDGE

¶40

Vineesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vineesh 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

Unni Vs State of Kerala

Thomas @ Vinod Vs State of Kerala

Fathima Maruthil Vs State of Kerala

K.Thankamma Vs State of Kerala

J.Joseph Francis @ Boban Vs State of Kerala

Sajeevan Vs State of Kerala