Allowed

Dineshan v. Kutty

Kerala HC16 Sept 2015Crl.MC/6097/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings instituted against three accused under Sections 447, 323, and 324 IPC (read with Sec. 34) on the ground of an amicable settlement reached between the accused and the complainant, directing release from prosecution and discharge of bail bonds. It also ordered quashing of a counter case filed by the accused.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the prosecution against petitioners in C.C. No.1385/2014; ordered release of accused and discharge of bail bond; quashed the counter case.

Dineshan Vs Kutty — 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 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/25TH BHADRA, 1937

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 6097 of 2015 ()

¶6

--------------------------CC 1385/2014 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PIRAVOM CRIME NO. 344/2010 OF MULANTHURUTHY POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM DISTRICT ==================

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3:

¶8

1. DINESHAN, AGED 30 YEARS S/O.KOCHUKUNJU, ARAKKAPPARAMBIL HOUSE INCHIMALA BHAGOM, MULANTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM.

¶9

2. SIDHEESH, AGED 31 YEARS S/O.KARUNAKARAN, SOODRAPPILLI HOUSE INCHIMALA BHAGOM MULANGTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM.

¶10

3. JOBY, AGED 31 YEARS S/O.JOSE, CHANDANAPPARAMBIL HOUSE INCHIMALA BHAGOM MULANTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.IEANS.C.CHAMAKKALA

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1. KUTTY, AGED 80 YEARS, S/O.KARUNAKARAN ELLUMKALAYIL HOUSE, INCHIMALA BHAGOM MULANTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM 682314.

¶14

2. UDAYAN, AGED 38 YEARS S/O.KUTTY, ELLUMKALAYIL HOUSE, INCHIMALA BHAGOM MULANTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM, 682314.

¶15

3. LEELA, AGED 60 YEARS W/O.KUTTY, ELLUMKALAYIL HOUSE, INCHIMALA BHAGOM MULANTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM, 682314.

¶16

4. SMITHA, AGED 33 YEARS W/O.PRASAD, ADUKKATTIL HOUSE, CHETHIKKODU KARA EDAKKATTUVAYAL VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM 682314.

¶17

5. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, 682031.

¶18

R1-4 BY ADV. SRI.BINU B.SAMUEL R5 BY ADV. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-09-2015, ALONG WITH CRMC. 6111/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Crl.MC.No. 6097 of 2015 ()

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

¶23

ANNEXURE-A1: COPY OF THE F.I.STATEMENT.

¶24

ANNEXURE-A2: COPY OF THE F.I.R. ANNEXURE-A3: COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET. ANNEXURE-A4: AFFIDAVIT OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE-A5: AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE-A6: AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE-A7: AFFIDAVIT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶25

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

NIL

TRUE COPY

P.A.TO JUDGE

P. UBAID, J.

Crl.M.C.No.6097 of 2015

¶32

Dated this the 16^th day of September, 2015

¶33

The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C. No.1385/2014 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 447, 323 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC, on the complaint of one Kutty, who is the 1^st 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. The other persons who sustained injuries in the alleged incident are the respondent Nos.2 to 4 in this proceeding. They 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.

¶34

In so many decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even in cases involving non-compoundable offences, the

¶35

¶36

Crl.M.C. No.6097/2015

¶37

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 further proceedings 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 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.

¶38

In the result, this petition is allowed. The prosecution against the petitioners herein in C.C. No.1385/2014 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. The counter case also stands settled between the parties, and the court has passed orders quashing that proceeding also.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

P. UBAID, JUDGE

¶41

Dineshan v. Kutty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dineshan v. Kutty

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

Shahana Vs State of Kerala

Liju Ommen Vs State of Kerala

A.R.Sunil Vs the State of Kerala

Manzoor T.R Vs Fasiya

Babu Vs State of Kerala

Udayan Vs Karthiyani