Quashed

Rakesh Devassy v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 May 2016Crl.MC/2268/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala exercised inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings against accused persons after finding that the civil dispute underlying the offences had been amicably settled between the parties without coercion.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings as against the petitioner as well as respondents 3 and 4 in C.C No. 4238 of 2010 are quashed.

Rakesh Devassy Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2016/2ND JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2268 of 2016 ()

¶6

CC.NO. 4238/2010 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, ERNAKULAM CRIME NO. 550/2010 OF ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED:

¶8

RAKESH DEVASSY, S/O DEVASSY, AGED 29 YEARS, ITTIPPATTA (H), LIG 367, GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI-682 020, ERNAKULAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.J.RAMKUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND ACCUSED 1 & 2:

¶11

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

¶12

2. SURAJ, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O SUBRAMANYAN, PANDARAPPARAMBIL HOSUE, PANAMBUKADU, MULAVUKADU-682 504.

¶13

3. RAJESH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, S/O RAGHUNATHAN NAIR, CHALAKKAD (H), KALATHUKANDA KARA, ARUVIKKARA DESOM, NEDUMANGAD-695 541.

¶14

4. SHAHUL HAMEED, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O MOHAMMED, MADHUHAPPALLY HOUSE, CHEENAKUZHY, UDUMBANNOOR VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK-685 584.

¶15

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SAREENA GEORGE.P. R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.S.MANSOOR

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

sts

¶18

Crl.MC.No. 2268 of 2016 ()

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶21

ANNEX A1: CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN C.C.NO.4238/2010 OF HON'BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II, ERNAKULAM.

¶22

ANNEX A2: AFFIDAVIT OF THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J.

¶29

==================

¶30

Crl.M.C.No.2268 of 2016

¶31

==================

¶32

Dated this the 23^rd day of May, 2016

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

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

¶35

The petitioner herein is the 3^rd accused in C.C No. 4238 of 2010 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ernakulam. The said crime was registered at the instance of the 2^nd respondent for offences under sections 452, 341, 323 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶36

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the dispute between the second respondent and the petitioner has been amicably resolved. Referring to Annexure A2 affidavit filed by the 2^nd respondent it is submitted that the second respondent

¶37

does not wish or intend that the prosecution proceedings

¶38

Crl.M.C.No.2268 of 2016

¶39

¶40

against the petitioner as well as the respondents 3 and 4 should continue any further.

¶41

The learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent would endorse the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions would submit that the petitioner is not a person with any criminal antecedents and the State has no objection in relying on Annexure A2 affidavit to quash the pending proceedings.

¶42

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.

¶43

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.

¶44

7. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012

¶45

Crl.M.C.No.2268 of 2016

¶46

¶47

(10) SCC 303), 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

¶48

Punjab. (2014 (6) SCC 466) and Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another (2014

¶49

(9) SCC 653)

¶50

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

¶51

Crl.M.C.No.2268 of 2016

¶52

¶53

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.

¶54

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 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 .

¶55

Consequently, all further proceedings as against

¶56

Crl.M.C.No.2268 of 2016

¶57

¶58

the petitioner as well as respondents 3 and 4 in C.C No. 4238 of 2010 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ernakulam are hereby quashed.

¶59

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, Judge

¶60

lsn

Rakesh Devassy v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Devassy 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

Kunjayyappan Vs State of Kerala

Manoj Vs the State of Kerala

Mohammed Shuhaib Vs State of Kerala

Ummer Vs State of Kerala

M.A. Ahammed Shaffiyulla Vs State of Kerala

Saleem @ Saleem Ahamed Vs State of Kerala