Allowed

Shijimon Joseph v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Dec 2015Crl.MC/7140/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition to quash prosecution against the second accused under Section 482 CrPC. Finding the parties had settled the dispute and the victim received double the stolen value, the court held that since the offence was compoundable at the time, quashing proceedings would not send a wrong message. The charge sheet in C.C.No.320/2014 was quashed

What did the court decide?

The prosecution in C.C.No.320/2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I, Cherthala against the petitioner is quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Shijimon Joseph 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

TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 7140 of 2015 ()

¶6

IN CC 320/2014 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT.-I, CHERTHALA

¶7

CRIME NO. 132/2004 OF KUTHIYATHODE POLICE STATION , ALAPPUZHA

¶8

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.2:

¶9

SHIJIMON JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH AGED 34 YEARS PUTHUKKATTU VEETTIL, EZHUPUNNA VILLAGE CHERTHALA TALUK.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶12

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

¶13

2. VRINDA DEVI AGED 58 YEARS, W/O.GAJENDRA KAMMATH, JAYA NIVAS THURAVOOR KURTHIYATHODU VILLAGE, CHERTHALA.

¶14

R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.SHANES METHAR R1 BY ADV. JUSTIN JACOB, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Crl.MC.No. 7140 of 2015 ()

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

ANNEXURE 1: COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.132/2004 OF KUTHIATHODU POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶20

ANNEXURE II: AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: N I L

¶22

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

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

P. UBAID, J.

Crl.M.C.No.7140 of 2015

¶28

---------------------------------------------Dated this the 15^th day of December, 2015

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The petitioner herein is the 2^nd accused in C.C.No.746/2004 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I, Cherthala. During the proceedings, both the accused absconded from legal process. The case then happened to be transferred to the register of long pending cases. The first accused later surrendered on 03.10.2008. His case was refiled as C.C.No.1327/2008, and after trial, he was convicted by the Court under Section 379 IPC. The first accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rupees Three thousand. The case against the petitioner herein continued in the register of long pending cases till he surrendered in February 2014. His case is now pending as C.C.No.320/2014 in the court below. He now seeks orders quashing the prosecution against him on the ground of amicable settlement of the whole dispute between him and the de facto complainant. The 2^nd respondent herein is the victim of offence. She has filed affidavit to the effect that the whole dispute stands

¶31

Crl.M.C.No.7140/2015

¶32

¶33

settled and she has no grievance or complaint now. After 2009, the offence under Section 379 IPC is compoundable under the law, irrespective of the value of the stolen article. As on the date of commission of the offence in this case also, it was compoundable, subject to a limit of Rupees Two thousand. Composition is not possible because the value of the subject matter exceeds Rupees Two thousand. That is why the petitioner now seeks orders from this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶34

The victim's affidavit shows that the whole dispute now stands settled further. It is submitted that the victim has received double the value of the stolen article. I find that the parties have come to terms amicably and the parties are now on quite cordial terms. I do not think that quashing the proceedings against the petitioner will convey any wrong message when the offence is presently compoundable under the law.

¶35

In the result, the petition is allowed. The prosecution against the petitioner in C.C.No.320/2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I, Cherthala will stand quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶36

SD/- P. UBAID JUDGE

¶37

Shijimon Joseph v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shijimon Joseph 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

Haridas @ Narayanankutty Vs State of Kerala

Suresh Kumar Vs the Regional Passport Officer

Ajitha Vs Beena

Fatheela Beegom Vs State

Bijoy Vs State of Kerala

Panniyodan Abdul Nazar Vs Jameela Chooryan