Allowed

Joshy v. Circle Inspector of Police,Pala

Kerala HC3 Nov 2016CRL.A/684/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellants appealed against conviction for offences under IPC. The court, noting that a settlement had been reached between the complainant, injured, and appellants in underlying matrimonial proceedings, exercised inherent powers to allow the appeal, quash the conviction, and order the immediate release of the appellants.

What did the court decide?

The conviction and sentence are quashed and the appellants are set at liberty.

Joshy Vs Circle Inspector of Police,Pala — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/12TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

CRL.A.No. 684 of 2004 (C)

¶6

-------------------------SC.NO. 13/2004 OF ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, KOTTAYAM

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/ACCUSED NOS.1,2,5,6,7 & 8:

¶8

1. JOSHY, SON OF THOMAS, THENADIKKULATHIL HOUSE, IDANADU KARA, VALLICHIRA VILLAGE.

¶9

2. JOBISH, S/O. THOMAS, THENADIKKULATHIL HOUSE, IDANADU KARA, VALLICHIRA VILLAGE.

¶10

3. SIBY GEORGE, S/O. GEORGE JOSEPH, THEKKEKAIMANAL HOUSE, KADUCKACHIRA KARA,

¶11

VALLICHIRA VILLAGE.

¶12

4. JOHNSON JOSEPH, S/O. JOSEPH, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, KADUCKACHIRA KARA,

¶13

VALLICHIRA VILLAGE.

¶14

5. GEORGE @ KUNJUNJU, S/O. JOHN, MUNDAMAKKIL HOUSE, (NOW RESIDING AT THE HOUSE OF MULACKADU CYRIAC), KADUCKACHIRA KARA, VALLICHIRA VILLAGE.

¶15

6. SABU, S/O. VARKEY, THEKKUMKATTIL HOUSE, KADUCKACHIRA KARA, VALLICHIRA VILLAGE.

¶16

BY ADVS.SRI.C.P.SAJI

¶17

SMT.P.DEEPA MOHAN

¶18

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶19

CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶20

*ADDL.R2 & R3 IMPLEADED

¶21

*ADDL.R2: THOMAS, AGED 71 YEARS, S/O.LATE THOMAS, THENADYKULATHIL HOUSE, EDANAD KARA, VALLICHIRA VILLAGE, EDANAD.P.O., PIN-686 574, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT

¶22

2/-

¶23

-2-

¶24

CRL.A.NO.684/2004

¶25

*ADDL.R3: JOSEPH ALIAS APPACHAN, AGED 74 YEARS, SON OF LATE ULAHANNAN, PADINDJERE CHITTATTIL HOUSE, EDANAD KARA, VALLICHIRA VILLAGE, EDANAD.P.O.- 686 574, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶26

*ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R2 & R3 VIDE ORDER DATED 3/11/2016 IN CRL.MA.NO.6663/2016 IN CRL.A.NO.684/2004.

¶27

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.R.RANJITH

¶28

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

sts

¶30

CRL.A.NO.684/2004

¶31

APPENDIX

¶32

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶33

ANNEX A1	AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 09/09/2016
ANNEX A2	AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 09/09/2016
ANNEX A3	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN MAT. APPEAL NO.870/2010 DATED 06/06/2016.

¶34

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

sts

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J

¶39

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

¶40

Crl.Appeal No.684 of 2004

¶41

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

¶42

Dated this the 3^rd day of November, 2016

¶43

J U D G M E N T

¶44

1.The appellants herein are the accused Nos.1, 2 and 5

¶45

to 8 in S.C.No.13 of 2004 on the file of the Additional

¶46

Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court (Adhoc)-II, Kottayam.

¶47

2.By judgment dated 16.4.2004, they were found guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 143, 452 and 326 read with Section 149 of the IPC and were accordingly convicted and sentenced. The aforesaid finding of guilt, conviction and sentence is assailed in this appeal.

¶48

3.The injured is the father of the appellants 1 and 2 and the other appellants are the neighbours. The de facto complainant is the friend of the injured. The accused

¶49

CrlAppeal No.684/2004

¶50

¶51

Nos. 3 and 4 who were acquitted after trial are the wife and daughter-in-law of the injured. Several matrimonial proceedings were pending between the parties and it was during the pendency of the said proceedings that the incident which led to the registration of the crime had taken place.

¶52

4.In the course of proceedings in appeal, the injured and the de facto complainant were impleaded as additional respondents 2 and 3. They have filed separate affidavits, wherein it is stated that the disputes between the near family members have been amicably resolved. Reference is also made to the order dated 6.6.2016 in Mat. Appeal No.870 of 2010 which was disposed of recording the settlement arrived at between the parties. The judgment in Mat.Appeal No.870 of 2010 is produced as Annexure-A3.

¶53

5.In the light of the settlement arrived at between the

¶54

CrlAppeal No.684/2004 3

¶55

parties, as held by the Apex Court in B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana [2003(2) KLT 1062, Gian Singh V. State of Punjab [2012 (10) SCC 303] and Narinder

¶56

Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another

¶57

[2014 (6) SCC 466], it is not in the interest of justice to continue with the prosecution. Further, in

¶58

Jithendra Raghuvanshi and others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and Another [2013(4) SCC 58], the Apex court had held that it was the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlement of matrimonial disputes.

¶59

6.In the case on hand, from Annexure-A3 order, I am satisfied that the parties have settled the disputes amicably. In view of the above, this Court will be justified in exercising its inherent powers to bring the criminal prosecution to a termination. This will encourage the parties to live in peace and harmony,

¶60

CrlAppeal No.684/2004

¶61

¶62

which will be in the best interest of the community as well.

¶63

7.In Biju Eappen v. State of Kerala and Another [2010

¶64

(1) KLT 289], a Single Judge of this Court has taken the view that this Court while exercising the extra ordinary inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can set aside the conviction and quash the proceedings in the interest of justice.

¶65

Accordingly, this appeal will stand allowed. The conviction and sentence in S.C.No.13 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court (Adhoc-II) - Kottayam are quashed and the appellants are set at liberty.

¶66

Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE

¶67

vps

Joshy v. Circle Inspector of Police,Pala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joshy v. Circle Inspector of Police,Pala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajayan Vs State of Kerala

Jagadeesh Chandran Vs Biju Antony

Krishnakutty Vs State of Kerala

Vineesh Vs State of Kerala

Vineesh Vs State of Kerala

Manoj Vs the State of Kerala