Allowed

Akhil v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 May 2016Crl.MC/2701/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court quashed criminal proceedings arising from a neighbourhood dispute. The Court held that upon establishing an amicable settlement between parties in a personal nature not affecting public peace, continuing prosecution would be futile, violating the interest of justice.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings in C.C.No.2251 of 2014 against petitioners pending before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chengannur shall stand quashed.

Akhil 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MAY 2016/28TH VAISAKHA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2701 of 2016 ()

¶6

CC 2251/2014 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, CHENGANNUR. CRIME NO. 1775/2012 OF CHENGANNOOR POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 3:

¶8

1. AKHIL @ AKHIL VINAYAK.B,AGED 24 YEARS, S/O BALANKUTTY.N, PERUMANOOR KARTHIKA HOUSE, ELANJIMEL, THEKKUM MURI, PULIYOOR VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶9

2. DINESH BABU @ BABU,AGED 43 YEARS,

¶10

S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, PERUMANOOR HOUSE, ELANJIMEL THEKKUM MURI, PULIYOOR VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶11

3. P.V.THANKAN, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, PERUMANOOR HOUSE, ELANJIMEL THEKKUM MURI,

¶12

PULIYOOR VILLAGE,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADVS.SRI.K.SHAJ

¶14

SRI.SAJJU.S

¶15

RESPONDENTS/STATE & CW1:

¶16

1.STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶17

HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶18

2.SAMUEL @ BENNY, AGED 53 YEARS,

¶19

S/O.SIMON, PARAPALLIL BENNY BHAVAN, ELANJIMEL THEKKUM MURI, PULIYOOR VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688011.

¶20

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.P.MAYA

¶21

R2 BY ADV. SRI.SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

mbr/

¶24

Crl.MC.No. 2701 of 2016 ()

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶27

ANNEXURE A1 : THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.2251/2014 PENDING BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,CHENGANNUR ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.1775/2012 OF CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION ANNEXURE A2 : AN AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT STATING THE SETTLEMENT OF ALL THE DISPUTES. RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL -----------------------//TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE mbr/

¶28

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J

¶29

¶30

Crl.M.C. No. 2701 of 2016

¶31

- - - - Dated 18^th May, 2016

¶32

¶33

ORDER

¶34

This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C

¶35

seeking to quash all further proceedings in C.C.No.2251 of 2014 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chengannur. The said case arose out of Crime No.1775 of 2012 of the Chengannur Police Station which was registered at the instance of the second respondent herein.

¶36

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶37

petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the second respondent.

¶38

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the incident which occurred on 4.12.2012 was not a pre-meditated one and had occurred in spur of the moment. It is further submitted that the petitioners as well as the de-facto complainant are

¶39

Crl.M.C. No. 2701 of 2016 -2-

¶40

immediate neighbours and relying on Annexure A2 affidavit it is submitted that the parties have settled the dispute amicably. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that the assertion in the affidavit

¶41

are true and genuine. It is submitted at the Bar that the dispute is purely personal in nature and therefore, would not affect public peace or tranquility in the area.

¶42

The learned public prosecutor on instructions submits that the petitioners are not persons with any criminal antecedents. It is further submitted that the state

¶43

has no serious objection in acting on the basis of the affidavit submited by the second respondent and in terms of the pronouncements of this Court as well as the Apex Court.

¶44

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

¶45

303 the 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. It was observed as

¶46

Crl.M.C. No. 2701 of 2016

¶47

-3-

¶48

follows :

¶49

“61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”

¶50

The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in Narinder singh v. State of Punjab. (2014) 6 SCC 466, the pertinent observations which are as under:

¶51

“29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

¶52

29.1 Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code.No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in

¶53

Crl.M.C. No. 2701 of 2016

¶54

-4-

¶55

those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

¶56

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

¶57

(i) ends of justice, or

¶58

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

¶59

xxxxxxx

¶60

xxxxxxx

¶61

It is by now settled that when the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and do not affect public peace or tranquility and when it is felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and secure the ends of justice, the inherent powers under Section 482 can very well be exercised to quash the criminal proceedings. In such cases persisting with the prosecution would be nothing but a waste of time as the prospects of conviction would be bleak.

¶62

Crl.M.C. No. 2701 of 2016

¶63

-5-

¶64

In view of the above, this Court is of the view that continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility. I am therefore of the view that the criminal proceedings pending as against the petitioners can be quashed by invoking the inherent powers of this Court under S.482 of the Code.

¶65

In the result, this petition is allowed. All further proceedings as against the petitioners pending as C.C.No.2251 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chengannur which has originated from Crime No.1775 of 2012 of Chengannur Police Station shall stand quashed.

¶66

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE

¶67

kp/-18.5.16

Akhil v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhil 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

Iqbal Vs Muneer

Anju@Bidesh Vs Sujith

P J Jose Vs State of Kerala

Febin Vs State of Kerala

Nijas Vs State of Kerala

Shameer Vs the State of Kerala