The Kerala High Court exercised powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings against petitioners accused of assaulting victims, noting an out-of-court settlement, lack of public interest in continuing the trial, and remote possibility of conviction.
All further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.1238 of 2015 shall stand quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2016/23RD ASHADHA, 1938
Crl.MC.No. 2986 of 2016 ()
CC. NO.1238/2015 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, HOSDURG.
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2:
1. DINESHAN.K.K, S/O.P.V. POKKAN, AGED 34 YEARS, PADINHARE VALAPPIL HOUSE, ACHAMTHURUTHI (P.O), CHERVATHUR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
2. RUPESH KRISHNAN,
BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN.
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 031.
2. GIREESH KUMAR. P, S/O.NARAYANAN. M, AGED 30 YEARS, "PADINHAR HOUSE", ACHAMTHURUTHI (P.O), CHERVATHUR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN-671 313.
3. SHRIJILESH ARIL, S/O. SIDHARTHAN, AGED 25 YEARS, RESIDING AT ''ARIL HOUSE'', ACHAMTHURUTHI P.O., CHIERUVATHUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 313.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE. R2 BY ADV. SRI.PHILJO VARUGHESE PHILIPS.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
Crl.MC.No. 2986 of 2016
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF CHARGE IN C.C.1238 OF 2015 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-I, HOSDURG IN CRIME NO.314/2015 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT DATED 18-03-2016 IS SWORN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:
NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V., J.
Crl.M.C. No.2986 of 2016
Dated this the 14th day of July, 2016
O R D E R
~~~~~~~~
1.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in C.C.No.1238 of 2015 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Hosdurg. The aforesaid case has arisen from Crime No.314 of 2015 registered at the instance of the 2nd respondent herein alleging commission of offence punishable under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The 3rd respondent is a victim.
Crl.M.C. No. 2986 of 2016
-2-
court settlement and there is no acrimony between them at present. All the disputes have been amicably resolved and they desire to live in peace and harmony. The respondents 2 and 3 have sworn to separate affidavits wherein they assert that they have no objection in terminating the proceedings.
Crl.M.C. No. 2986 of 2016 -3-
nature and do not affect public peace or tranquility. It is also felt that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace. In a case such as the instant one, even if the prosecution is allowed to continue, it would not serve any purpose as the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. It can only result in putting the de facto complainant and the accused to unwanted oppression and prejudice. Settlement will augur well for the interest of the community and will enable the parties to live in peace and harmony.
In the result, this petition is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.1238 of 2015 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Hosdurg, shall stand quashed.
sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE
ps/15.7.2016
3 issues framed by the court
Whether powers under Section 482 CrPC can be invoked to quash criminal proceedings based on out-of-court settlement and absence of public interest.
Whether the personal nature of the offence and potential for conviction supports quashing to avoid oppression of parties.
Whether the compromise between parties and absence of acrimony permits termination of the trial.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of PunjabRelied on¶42
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab ( 2012 (4) KLT 108)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dineshan.K.K
Rupesh Krishnan
State of Kerala
Gireesh Kumar. P
Shrijilesh Aril
Raja Vijayaraghavan V
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
