Allowed

Sajeevan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Dec 2015Crl.MC/7510/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, in a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by seven accused persons, allowed the petition and quashed the prosecution in C.C. No. 2087/2014 on the ground of a genuine amicable settlement between the parties and the complainant.

What did the court decide?

Prosecution in C.C. No. 2087/2014 quashed under Section 482 CrPC; petitioners released; bail bond discharged; counter case settled and quashed.

Sajeevan 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

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

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 7510 of 2015 ()

¶6

CC 2087/2014 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, ALAPPUZHA CRIME NO. 628/2015 OF MANNANCHERRY POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA ===============

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 7:

¶8

1. SAJEEVAN, S/O.GOPALAN, MUNDUCHIRA VEEDU, WARD NO.14 MANNANCHERY PANCHAYAT, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶9

2. SANDEEP, S/O.SAJEEVAN, MUNDUCHIRA VEEDU, WARD NO.14 MANNANCHERY PANCHAYAT, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶10

3. SANEESH, S/O.SAJEEVAN, MUNDUCHIRA VEEDU, WARD NO.14 MANNANCHERY PANCHAYAT, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶11

4. SAJITH, S/O.SAJEEVAN, MUNDUCHIRA VEEDU, WARD NO.14 MANNANCHERY PANCHAYAT, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶12

5. SINDHU, W/O.SAJEEVAN, MUNDUCHIRA VEEDU, WARD NO.14 MANNANCHERY PANCHAYAT, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶13

6. SUNILKUMAR @ SUNI

¶14

S/O.RAJU, NADANAM (ASARIPARAMBU)VEEDU, WARD NO.7 MARARIKKULAM SOUTH PANCHAYAT, ALAPPUZHA.

¶15

7. RAJITH @ RAHUL

¶16

S/O.REGHUVARAN, NIKARTHIL VEEDU, WARD NO.7 MARARIKKULAM SOUTH PANCHAYAT, ALAPPUZHA.

¶17

BY ADV. SRI.P.SHANES METHAR

¶18

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶19

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

¶20

2. ASOKAN, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.PRABHAKARAN MECHERIVELI VEEDU, NORTH ARYAD.P.O. MANNANCHERY, ALAPPUZHA.

¶21

Crl.MC.No. 7510 of 2015 ()

¶22

-2-

¶23

3. ANEESHA, AGED 24 YEARS, D/O.ASOKAN MECHERIVELI VEEDU, NORTH ARYAD.P.O. MANNANCHERY, ALAPPUZHA.

¶24

R1 BY ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JUSTIN JACOB

¶25

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

¶26

Crl.MC.No. 7510 of 2015 ()

¶27

APPENDIX

¶28

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

¶29

ANNEXURE I- TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE-SHEET IN CRIME NO.628/2014 OF MANNANCHERY POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶30

ANNEXURE II- AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶31

ANNEXURE III- AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶32

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

NIL

// TRUE COPY //

P.A. TO JUDGE

P. UBAID, J.

Crl.M.C.No.7510 of 2015

¶39

Dated this the 17^th day of December, 2015

¶40

The petitioners herein are the seven accused in C.C. No.2087/2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Alappuzha. 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 143, 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 324 and 427 IPC, on the complaint of one Asokan, who 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 now. The other person, who sustained injuries in the alleged incident is the respondent No.3 in this proceeding. She has also filed affidavit to the effect that she has settled the whole dispute with the accused, and she has no grievance or complaint now.

¶41

In so many decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

¶42

¶43

Crl.M.C.. No. 7510/2015

¶44

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 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.

¶45

In the result, this petition is allowed. The prosecution against the petitioners herein in C.C. No.2087/2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Alappuzha 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 and quashed.

¶46

Sd/P. UBAID, JUDGE

¶47

¶48

// True Copy // P.A. to Judge

Sajeevan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajeevan 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

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

Vineesh Vs State of Kerala