Allowed

Sudheesh P. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Mar 2015Crl.MC/640/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court quashed an FIR registered under Section 395 IPC alleging robbery/dacoity. The court found that the accused and complainant had reached an amicable settlement, rendering further prosecution unnecessary and a waste of court time. The petition under Section 482 CrPC was allowed.

What did the court decide?

The FIR and further proceedings in Crime No.289/2014 of Chandera Police Station were quashed under Section 482 CrPC.

Sudheesh P. 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 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/20TH PHALGUNA, 1936

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 640 of 2015 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 289/2014 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION,KASARGOD DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

1. SUDHEESH.P, AGED 26 YEARS,

¶9

S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, EBRAN HOUSE, KODAKKAD VILLAGE,

¶10

P.O.PUTHILOTT, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD.

¶11

2. ABHILASH, AGED 22 YEARS,

¶12

S/O.LATE K.CHANDRAN, ELATTU HOUSE, OTHANKARA,

¶13

CHERUVATHUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARGOD.

¶14

3. SUJESH, AGED 21 YEARS,

¶15

S/O.SURENDRAN, EDUPPIL HOUSE, OTHANKARA,

¶16

CHERUVATHUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD.

¶17

4. SHAJAHAN, AGED 21 YEARS,

¶18

S/O.A.C.AHAMMED HAJI, MAYINGATTU HOUSE, UZHINJADI, CHERUVATHUR VILLAGE, KAITHAKKAD.P.O., HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD.

¶19

5. SAMEER A.C, AGED 22 YEARS,

¶20

S/O.MUHAMMED, BANASHA MANZIL, PAYYANGI,

¶21

CHERUVATHUR VILLAGE, CHERUVATHUR P.O.,

¶22

HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD.

¶23

6. ASHARAF, AGED 24 YEARS,

¶24

S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, ASHARAF MANZIL, PAYYANGI,

¶25

CHERUVATHUR VILLAGE, CHERUVATHUR.P.O.,

¶26

HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD.

¶27

BY ADV. SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR

¶28

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶29

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

¶30

2. SHAJI JOSEPH, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, RESIDING AT THALAKANI, KOTTIYOOR VILLAGE, KANNUR DISTRICT.PIN- 670 651.

¶31

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S.HYMA R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.MADHUSUDHANAN

¶32

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶33

sts

¶34

Crl.MC.No. 640 of 2015 ()

¶35

APPENDIX

¶36

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶37

ANNEX A1A TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO.289 OF 2O14 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. ANNEX AIIA TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ENDORSING THE FACTUM OF SETTLEMENT.

¶38

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO.JUDGE

sts

P.UBAID, J.

Crl.M.C No.640 of 2015

¶45

Dated this the 11^th March, 2015

¶46

The petitioners seek orders quashing the F.I.R and further proceedings in Crime No.289/2014 of Chandera Police Station, registered under Section 395 IPC on the complaint of one Shaji Joseph. Orders are sought on the ground of amicable settlement of the whole dispute between the accused and the de facto complainant out of court. The de facto complainant, Shaji Joseph is the 2^nd 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.

¶47

On a perusal of the final report and the First Information Statement, I find that this is not exactly a case of dacoity. The real object of the petitioners was assault on two persons. When one of them escaped, three of the accused followed him, and the other two assaulted the first informant and took some money from his pocket. What is revealed at the most is in fact robbery committed by two of the petitioners and not all of them. Any way, the matter now stands amicably

¶48

Crl.M.C.. No.640 of 2015

¶49

¶50

settled, and the parties do not want to proceed with the prosecution. There is no report regarding the involvement of any of the petitioners in offence like theft, robbery, or dacoity.

¶51

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; be it at the crime stage or at the trial stage or even at the appellate or revision stage; if the parties have really settled the whole dispute, or if continuance of prosecution will not serve any purpose. Here, I find a real case of settlement between the parties, and I also find that continuance of 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.

¶52

In the result, this petition is allowed. The F.I.R and further proceedings in Crime No.289/2014 of Chandera Police Station will stand quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

P.UBAID, JUDGE

¶55

Sudheesh P. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudheesh P. 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

Narayanan Vs State of Kerala

Kunjubava @ Babu Vs Kunjalavi

Dr K Mahesh Menon Vs Hatis Core Engineering Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

Abhilash A.C Vs State of Kerala

Lijo Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Noufal Vs State of Kerala