Allowed

Ravanth Raj v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 May 2016Crl.MC/2122/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Miscellaneous petition sought quashing of pending prosecution based on an amicable settlement between parties. The High Court held that since the dispute was private in nature and parties genuinely resolved their grievances, continuing proceedings would be an abuse of process directing quashal and acquittal.

What did the court decide?

Further proceedings as against petitioners in C.P.No.59 of 2015 arising from Crime No.393 of 2014 shall stand quashed; petitioners shall be acquitted of all charges.

Ravanth Raj 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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2016/3RD JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2122 of 2016

¶6

C.P.NO.59/2015 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, VADAKARA CRIME NO. 393/2014 OF EDACHERRY POLICE STATION , KOZHIKODE

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.S 1-9 :

¶8

1. REVANTH RAJ K.P., RANDUTHENGULLATHIL HOUSE, EDACHERY NORTH P.O., VADAKARA VIA,

¶9

KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 502.

¶10

2. VISHNU PRASAD, S/O.KRISHNAN, KAREECHERY HOUSE, EDACHERRY NORTH P.O.,

¶11

VADAKARA-673 502.

¶12

3. BIJEESH,

¶13

S/O.BHASKARAN, KANDOTH HOUSE, EDACHERRY NORTH P.O., VADAKARA-673 502.

¶14

4. ANOOP K.,

¶15

KULANGARATH HOUSE, EDACHERY NORTH P.O., VADAKARA VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 502.

¶16

5. ASWIN BABU,

¶17

KIZHAKKE KANNOTH HOUSE, EDACHERY NORTH P.O., VADAKARA VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 502.

¶18

6. ASWINLAL M.K., MEETHALE HOUSE, EDACHERY NORTH P.O., VADAKARA VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 502.

¶19

7. PRASHOBH K., KAATTIL HOUSE, EDACHERY NORTH P.O., VADAKARA VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 502.

¶20

8. SARANG R.T.,

¶21

RANDDUTHENGULLAHIL HOUSE, EDACHERI NORTH, VADAKARA, KOZHIKKODU.

¶22

9. RAGIL E., ELAMITHOTTATHIL HOUSE, KACHERI P.O., EDACHERI VIA, KOZHIKKODU DISTRICT.

¶23

BY ADV. SMT.V.K.HEMA

¶24

..2/-

¶25

..2..

¶26

Crl.MC.No. 2122 of 2016

¶27

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/VICTIMS :

¶28

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

¶29

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EDACHERRY POLICE STATION, PIN- 673 502.

¶30

3. JIMITH, AGED 25, D/O.RAJAN, KARUNNANTAVIDA HOUSE, EDACHERY P.O., KAAKKANNUR, PIN- 673 502.

¶31

4. ARSHIN,

¶32

AGED 22, S/O.ASHOKAN, PUTHALATH POYYIL HOUSE, EDACHERY P.O., KAAKAANNUR, PIN- 673 502.

¶33

5. SREELAL, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.SAJEEVAN, KUNNATH HOUSE, EDACHERY P.O., KAAKKANNUR, PIN- 673 502.

¶34

6. VISHNU SHEKHAR,

¶35

AGED 19, S/O.SHEKHARAN, MEETHALE KAIKKULAM KANDI HOUSE, EDACHERY P.O., KAAKKANNUR, PIN- 673 502

¶36

7. AASHIQUE, AGED 22, S/O.DINESA, KANIYANTE PARAMBATH HOUSE, EDACHERY P.O., KAAKKANNUR, PIN- 673 502.

¶37

8. AKHIL,

¶38

AGED 23, S/O.CHANDRAN, PADINJARE POOKKOTTU KUNI HOUSE, EDACHERY, KAAKKANNNUR, PIN- 673 502.

¶39

R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE.P R3 TO R8 BY ADV. SMT.K.J.GISHA

¶40

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶41

Msd.

¶42

Crl.MC.No. 2122 of 2016

¶43

APPENDIX

¶44

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :

¶45

ANNEXURE A1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.393/2014 OF POLICE STATION, EDACHERY, DATED 04.10.2014 CHARGE. ANNEXURE A2: AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A3: AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A4: AFFIDAVIT FILED B Y THE 5TH RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A5: AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A6: AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A7: AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT.

¶46

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE

Msd.

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J.

¶52

Crl.M.C. No.2122 of 2016

¶53

Dated this the 24^th day of May, 2016

¶54

O R D E R

¶55

This petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) seeking invocation of powers of this Court to quash pending Criminal Proceedings.

¶56

The petitioners herein are accused Nos. 1 to 9 in Crime No. 393 of 2014 of Edacherry Police Station. The said crime was registered at the instance of the third respondent herein alleging offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 506 (II) and 308 r/w 149 of the IPC.

¶57

The investigation was conducted and the final report was laid before the Jurisdictional Magistrate and the case is now pending as C.P.No.59 of 2015 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Magistrate, Vadakara. The third respondent herein is the defacto complainant and respondents Nos. 4 to 8 are the injured witnesses.

¶58

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Crime No.390 of 2014 is a counter case and the parties have decided to amicably resolve the disputes and to live in harmony. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 8 relying on Annexures

¶59

Crl.M.C. No.2122/2016

¶60

¶61

A2 to A7 affidavits sworn to by the aforesaid respondents submitted that their grievance does not subsist any more and they do not intend to pursue the criminal proceedings as against the petitioners herein. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submit that the petitioners are not persons with any criminal antecedents and that the State has no serious objection in acting upon Annexure-A2 to Annexure-A7 affidavits as it would promote peace and harmony.

¶62

It is thus borne out from the submissions made at the bar that the parties have amicably settled their disputes with their free will and without any kind of pressure, influence or coercion. The compromise, it is felt, is voluntarily and genuine and can be acted upon.

¶63

The law with regard to the settlement of criminal disputes on the strength of an amicable resolution of the disputes between the parties is no more res integra.

¶64

In Gian singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303),

¶65

Apex Court has laid down that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. This view was reiterated in Narinder singh v. State of Punjab. (2014) 6 SCC 466) and Yogendra Yadav and Others V State of Jharkhand

¶66

Crl.M.C. No.2122/2016

¶67

¶68

and Another 2014 (9) SCC 653 .

¶69

It was held that the inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. It was held that certain categories of cases involving heinous heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute as those offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. But those cases where the wrong is basically private or personnel in nature and those in which the parties have resolved their entire dispute could fittingly be quashed by this court taking into account the compromise between the offender and victim. In such cases the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused and the de facto complainant to great oppression and prejudice

¶70

After having anxiously considered the submissions it is felt that it would be unfair and contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding. It would only tantamount to abuse of process of law to subject the parties to the ordeal of a

¶71

Crl.M.C. No.2122/2016

¶72

¶73

protracted criminal proceeding despite the settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer. Settlement will augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony .

¶74

Consequently, all further proceedings as against the petitioners in C.P.No.59 of 2015 on the files of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vadakara which has arisen from Crime No.393 of 2014 of Edacherry Police Station shall stand quashed. The petitioners/ accused shall stand acquitted of all charges .

¶75

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., (JUDGE)

¶76

vps

Ravanth Raj v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravanth Raj 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ummer Vs State of Kerala

M.A. Ahammed Shaffiyulla Vs State of Kerala

Saleem @ Saleem Ahamed Vs State of Kerala

Ajay Vs State of Kerala

Aashique Vs State of Kerala

M.P.Sathar Vs State of Kerala