Allowed

Asha v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Jan 2016Crl.MC/197/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings under Sections 341 and 324 IPC. The court found a genuine amicable settlement between the accused and complainants, held that continuing the prosecution served no purpose, and quashed the proceedings under the inherent powers of Section 482 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

The prosecution against the petitioner in C.C No.796/2012 is quashed, and the petitioner is released from prosecution; the bail bond stands discharged.

Asha Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/23RD POUSHA, 1937

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 197 of 2016

¶6

IN CC 796/2012 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II, KOTTARAKKARA CRIME NO. 954/2011 OF POOYAPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

ASHA, AGED 28 YEARS, W/O.KARNAN, KUNNATHAZHIKATHU THEKKEVILA VEEDU, NEAR SASTHA TEMPLE, NILAMEL MURI, NILAMEL VILLAGE KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANTS:

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.

¶12

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POOYAPPALLY POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 004.

¶13

3. AMBIKA, AGED 44 YEARS, D/O.BABY, ANITHA MANDIRAM, PUTHIYOOR COLONY, ALIMUKKU, PADINJATTINKARA, VELLIYAM VILLAGE, VELIYAM PO, KOLLAM - 690 001.

¶14

4. ANITHA, AGED 27 YEARS, D/O.AMBIKA, ANITHA MANDIRAM, PUTHIYOOR COLONY, ALIMUKKU, PADINJATTINKARA, VELLIYAM VILLAGE, VELIYAM P.O, KOLLAM - 690 001.

¶15

R4 BY SRI.R.ARUN

¶16

R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.MADHUBEN

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Crl.MC.No. 197 of 2016

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶21

ANNEXURE A1- COPY OF THE FIR IN CIMR NO.954/2011 OF POOYAPPALLY POLICE STATION.

¶22

ANNEXURE A2- COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN CRIME NO.954/2011 OF POOYAPPALLY POLICE STATION

¶23

ANNEXURE A3- COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶24

ANNEUXRE A4- COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT

¶25

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE

P.UBAID, J. --------------------------------------Crl.M.C No.197 of 2016 ---------------------------------------

¶31

Dated this the 13^th day of January, 2016

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

The petitioner herein is the sole accused in C.C No.796/2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Kottarakkara. She seeks orders quashing the prosecution on the ground of amicable settlement of the whole dispute between her and the de facto complainant. Crime in this case was registered under Sections 341 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code on the complaint of one Ambika who is the third respondent in this proceeding brought under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She has filed affidavit to the effect that she has settled the whole dispute with the accused, and she has no grievance or complaint now.

¶34

The other person who sustained injuries in the alleged incident is the fourth respondent 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.

¶35

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

¶36

Crl.M.C No.197 of 2016 2

¶37

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 the prosecution 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 petitioner herein in C.C No.796/2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Kottarakkara will stand quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the petitioner will stand released from prosecution, and the bail bond, if any, executed by her will stand discharged.

¶39

Sd/P.UBAID JUDGE //True Copy//

¶40

Asha v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asha 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

T.Noorjahan Vs Saithalavi

Shajeer Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Jabbar P.P. Vs Station House Officer

Sree Murukan Vs State of Kerala

Vineesh Babu Vs Anjana

Shibili Vs State of Kerala