Allowed

S.N.Sharma v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Sept 2015Crl.MC/5919/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the criminal prosecution against the petitioner as a sole accused. The court found that the dispute involving alleged indecent shout and unauthorized photography had been amicably settled with all complainants, making the continuance of the trial unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Prosecution under C.C. No. 736/2014 quashed; petitioner released from prosecution; bail bond discharged.

S.N.Sharma 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 P.UBAID

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/11TH BHADRA, 1937

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 5919 of 2015

¶6

----------------------IN CC 736/2014 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KASARAGOD CRIME NO. 611/2013 OF BADIADUKKA POLICE STATION, KASARGOD

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

SATHYA NARAYANA SHARMA @ S.N.SHARMA, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNA BHAT, KODIYADUKKA, BADIADKA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.S.JIJI

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

2. JOICY JOSE, AGED 28 YEARS, W/O.JOSE PANICKER, KODIYADUKKA, BADIADKA, KASARAGOD - 671 541.

¶13

3. MARY THOMAS, AGED 57 YEARS, W/O.THOMAS PANICKER, KODIYADUKKA, BADIADKA, KASARAGOD - 671 541.

¶14

4. RATNA.M, AGED 36 YEARS, W/O.MALLAPPA NAIKA, KODIYADUKKA, BADIADKA, KASARAGOD - 671 541.

¶15

R2-R4 BY ADV. SMT.K.S.SANTHI

¶16

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SHEEBA M.T

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Crl.MC.No. 5919 of 2015

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶21

ANNEXURE A1: COPY OF THE FIR IN CR.NO.611/2013 OF BADIADKA POLICE STATION.

¶22

ANNEXURE A2: COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CR.NO.611/2013 OF BADIADKA POLICE STATION

¶23

ANNEXURES A3(A) TO A3(C): AFFIDAVITS DATED 28.5.2015 SWORN BY THE RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4.

¶24

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE

P.UBAID, J.

--------------------------------------Crl.M.C No.5919 of 2015

¶31

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

¶32

Dated this the 2^nd day of September, 2015

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

The petitioner herein is the sole accused in C.C No.736/2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Kasaragod. He seeks orders quashing the prosecution on the ground of amicable settlement of the whole dispute between him and the de facto complainant. Crime in this case was registered under Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 119(b) of the Kerala Police Act on the complaint of one Joicy Jose, who is the 2^nd respondent in this proceeding brought under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She has filed affidavit to the effect that she has settled the whole dispute with the accused, and she has no grievance or complaint now. The respondents 3 and 4 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.

¶35

On a perusal of the first information statement in this case, I find nothing for a prosecution under Section 294(b)

¶36

Crl.M.C No.5919 of 2015 2

¶37

IPC. Even for a prosecution under Section 119(b) of the Kerala Police Act, the prosecution must have a case that photograph of the lady was taken by the accused in a manner affecting her privacy. The first information statement shows that the petitioner took photographs in connection with another incident of dispute, involving civil disputes, and he probably took the photographs with the object of proving the trespass alleged. Such an act will not come under Section 119(b) of the Kerala Police Act. Anyway, the matter now stands settled forever, and the complainant has no grievance or complaint.

¶38

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 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. In such a situation, continuance of the prosecution will not serve any

¶39

¶40

Crl.M.C No.5919 of 2015

¶41

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.

¶42

In the result, this petition is allowed. The prosecution against the petitioner herein in C.C No.736/2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Kasaragod will stand quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the petitioner will stand released from prosecution, and the bail bond, if any, executed by him will stand discharged.

¶43

P.UBAID JUDGE

¶44

S.N.Sharma v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.N.Sharma 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

Anwar Vs Njma

Ansar Vs State of Kerala

Riyas Babu Vs State of Kerala

Jalaja Mani Vs Sreeja M.S

Dr. Jacob Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Siby Mathew Vs State of Kerala