Allowed

Vinod K.C v. Dr.Lal Parameswar

Kerala HC5 Feb 2016Crl.MC/231/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Ernakulam allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings for offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 353 IPC read with 34 IPC. The court held that as the matter was amicably settled with the defacto complainant, further proceedings served no purpose.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of First Information Report in Crime No.1003/2015 and all further proceedings in it against the petitioners.

Vinod K.C Vs Dr.Lal Parameswar — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/16TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 231 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 1003/2015 OF NORTH PARAVUR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED :

¶8

1. VINOD K.C., AGED 39 YEARS S/O.CHANDRAN, KIZHPILLIPARAMB HOUSE,

¶9

WEST KADUNGALLUR, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

2. RAJAN, AGED 64 YEARS S/O.KUTTAPPAN, CHELIKUZHIYIL HOUSE, KURUMASSERY PARAKKADAV, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶11

3. BOSE, AGED 50 YEARS

¶12

S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, PONNANCHERI HOUSE CHERIA PALLAMTHURUTH, NORTH PARAVUR ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶13

4. SARUN, AGED 24 YEARS S/O.SIVADASAN, PAYYAMTHURUTHIL HOUSE, EDAYAPPURAM KEEZHMADU, ALUVA WEST P.O., ERNAKULAM DITRICT.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J. MURICKEN

¶15

RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & COMPLAINANT :

¶16

1. DR.LAL PARAMESWAR SUPERINTENDENT, TALUK HOSPITAL, NORTH PARAVUR P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 513.

¶17

2. STATE OF KERALA

¶18

REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶19

R1 BY ADV. SRI.MANOJ VASU R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.P. MAYA

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

¶22

...2/-

¶23

Crl.MC.No. 231 of 2016 ()

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :

¶26

ANNEXURE-A1. TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.1003/2015 OF NORTH PARAVUR POLICE STATION DATED 14/7/2015.

¶27

ANNEXURE-A2. TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN CRIME NO.1003/2015 OF NORTH PARAVUR POLICE STATION LODGED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 10/7/2015.

¶28

ANNEXURE-A3. TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, NORTH PARAVUR DATED 2/12/2015.

¶29

ANNEXURE-A4. TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT.

¶30

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

B.KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶35

================ Crl.M.C. No. 231 of 2016

¶36

======================= Dated this the 5^th day of February, 2016

¶37

O R D E R

¶38

The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.1003/2015 of the North Paravur Police Station, Ernakulam District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323 and 353 read with Section 34 IPC.

¶39

The matter has been amicably settled between the petitioners and the defacto complainant, who is the 1^st respondent herein. The defacto complainant has filed Annexure-A4 affidavit affirming that the matter has been amicably settled between him and the petitioners and he has no complaints against the petitioners.

¶40

No criminal antecedents have been reported against the petitioners. When the matter has been amicably

¶41

Crl.M.C. No. 231 of 2016

¶42

-: 2 :-

¶43

settled, no purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further, and therefore, Annexure-A1 First Information Report in Crime No.1003/2015 of the North Paravur Police Station, and all further proceedings in it as against the petitioners, can be quashed.

¶44

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and Annexure-A1 First Information Report in Crime No.1003/2015 of the North Paravur Police Station, and all further proceedings in it as against the petitioners, are hereby quashed.

¶45

Sd/- B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE

¶46

stu

Vinod K.C v. Dr.Lal Parameswar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod K.C v. Dr.Lal Parameswar

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

Devaki Amma Vs State of Kerala

Girish Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Sanal Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Satheesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Anex Vs State of Kerala

Bhaskaran Panayanthatta Valappil Vs State of Kerala