Allowed

Deepan Babu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Jun 2016Crl.MC/2277/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous case, the Kerala High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. The Court relied on the inherent powers to secure justice after establishing that the parties had amicably resolved their dispute and lived in harmony, rendering further prosecution an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Further proceedings in C.C. No. 1891 of 2006 were quashed.

Deepan Babu Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | 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 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/17TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2277 of 2016 ()

¶6

CC 1891/2006 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURTI,ATTINGAL CRIME NO.68/2005 OF CHIRAYINKIL POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANDAPURAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 4:

¶8

1. DEEPAN BABU, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. SURENDRAN, KIZHAKKE KUNNUVILA VEEDU, VADAKKOTTUKAVU, THOTTAKKAD DESOM, KARAVARAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶9

2. NASEER,AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED SALI, PEROOR THADATHI COTTAGE PUTHEN VEEDU, PEROOR DESOM, KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶10

3. ARUN, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. HARIDAS, REVATHI VEEDU, PONGANADU DESOM, PONGANADU, KILIMANOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶11

4. SHIMJITH, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. JAYAKUMAR, KALLILAKKATHIL VEEDU, VADAKKOTTU KAVU, THOTTAKKADU DESOM, KARAVARAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.C.ANILKUMAR (KALLESSERIL) SRI.C.Y.VINOD KUMAR

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE, DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & CW2:

¶14

1. STATE OF KERALA (REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHIRAYINKIL POLICE STATION - CR.NO.68/2005 OF CHIRAYINKIL POLICE STATION), REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶15

Crl.MC.No. 2277 of 2016 ()

¶16

2. NIHAS, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. HAMSA, KIZHAKKEVILA VEETTIL, COIR OFFICE JUNCTION, VETTOOR DESOM, VETTOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 312.

¶17

3. SANTHOSHKUMAR,AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. RAVEENDRAN, PIRAKKARI VEETTIL,NEAR KADAKKAVOOR CHEKKALAVILAKOM JANAKI HOSPITAL, KADAKKAVOOR DESOM, KADAKKAVOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 306.

¶18

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GITHESH.R R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.JELSON J.EDAMPADAM

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

Crl.MC.No. 2277 of 2016 ()

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶24

ANNEXURE A1: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CR.NO.68/2005 OF CHIRAYINKIL POLICE STATION, PENDING IN CC NO.1891/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT-I, ATTINGAL. ANNEXURE A2: AFFIDAVIT DTD.22.3.2016 SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A3: AFFIDAVIT DTD.22.3.2016 SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J

¶29

¶30

Crl.M.C. No. 2277 of 2016

¶31

- - - - Dated 7^th June, 2016

¶32

¶33

ORDER

¶34

This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”). The petitioners herein are accused Nos. 1 to 4 in C.C.No.1891 of 2006 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of 1^st Class - I, Attingal.

¶35

The aforesaid crime has been registered at the instance of the 2^nd respondent herein for the offences punishable under Section 324, 323 and 427 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 3^rd respondent is the injured.

¶36

The prosecution allegation is that on 21.2.2005, the petitioners herein obstructed the de facto complainant, who was the driver of a stage carriage bus bearing registration No. KL-01-4775 and manhandled him as well as the 3^rd respondent.

¶37

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing

¶38

Crl.M.C. No. 2277 of 2016 -2-

¶39

for the petitioner that during the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the matter has been amicably resolved and that the parties are living in peace and harmony. On its basis, it is submitted that the continuance of criminal prosecution will only enure to waste of valuable judicial time.

¶40

Respondents 2 and 3 have entered appearance

¶41

through counsel and referring to Annexures A2 and A3 affidavits , it is submitted that the matter has been amicably resolved and that the respondents did not intend or wish that the criminal proceedings as against the petitioners should continue any further.

¶42

The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that the State has no objection in acting on Annexures A2 and A3 affidavits as it would promote peace and harmony. It is also submitted that the petitioners are not persons with any criminal antecedents.

¶43

It is thus borne out from the submissions made at

¶44

Crl.M.C. No. 2277 of 2016 -3-

¶45

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. 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.

¶46

8. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC

¶47

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 Punjab. (2014) 6 SCC 466) and Yogendra Yadav and Others V State of Jharkhand and Another 2014 (9) SCC 653 .

¶48

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

¶49

Crl.M.C. No. 2277 of 2016 -4-

¶50

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 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.

¶51

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

¶52

Crl.M.C. No. 2277 of 2016 -5-

¶53

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.

¶54

In the result, this petition is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.1891 of 2006 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of 1^st Class- I, Attingal shall stand quashed.

¶55

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE

¶56

kp/-8.6.16

Deepan Babu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepan Babu 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

K.P.Madhu Vs v.S.Nawas

Babu Vs State of Kerala

Lalu Vs State of Kerala

Shyju @ Pallan Shyju Vs the State of Kerala

Padmanabhan Vs the Calicut Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

P.P.Shamsu Vs State of Kerala